Response to Vitalik Buterin on EOS

in #eos5 years ago (edited)

Vitalik Buterin recently took a question about EOS at the Ethereum Shenzhen Keynote. Today I would like to provide some factual corrections to his claims about EOS. I will do this by addressing each of his points one at a time.

At 8:20 minutes into the above video Vitalik Buteran says:

The reason why EOS says that they can process more transactions comes from two sources. One of them is there are a lot of protocol features that Ethereum has EOS doesn’t have. One of them, for example, was merkle trees. So this if you want to prove anything about a transaction then anyone in the network can prove it. And you actually don’t need that much computing power to prove that the state of that account is some number and that the transaction was included. EOS does not have this.

EOS does have a merkle tree over all the transactions within a block. This means it is possible to prove you have been paid without having to process all blocks nor trust the full nodes. In fact, these proofs are smaller than ETH because light nodes don’t even require the full history of block headers.

I have previously addressed the issue of generating Merkle Tree’s over state in my blog post titled Blockchain State Representation should be Abstract and not part of Consensus. I have also made the analogy that Blockchain state is like Schrödiger’s cat, you can never actually observe it or prove anything about it except by opening the box to find out if the cat is dead or alive. More specifically, while you can prove what the state was 1 minute ago (when you last opened the box), you cannot prove what the state is right now. At any time a transaction could mutate that state and it will no longer be the same as when you read it. The only exception is the use of “time locks” that assert the state cannot be modified for some time. Heavy use of time locks will crush performance and is of limited application.

What this means is that if you are participating in the EOS network and you do not have a full node, that means a node that is processing all of the transactions. Then that means you have to trust the full nodes. That there is no way to verify for yourself that everything is happening correctly.

EOS is designed to allow nodes that validate partial state. This means that not all nodes need to run every contract. This in turn means it is possible to know the state of the applications and contracts you care about without having a highly resource demanding full node. Second, light clients can prove what actions users took (transactions), therefore, they can prove payment. Third, if a proof is really necessary they can broadcast a transaction that will assert the state they care about. If you cannot find multiple independent sources of blockchain truth that you can cross reference then you have bigger problems. Finally, everyone in the EOS ecosystem is contractually bound by a constitution and if the API nodes lie about blockchain state there will be cryptographic evidence of their lie and they can be held accountable for damages.

In Ethereum you have to trust the light clients are validating proofs and syncing from the proper blockchain. The merkle proofs you do generate about state are quickly dated and irrelevant.

Attacking DPOS

Next Vitalik goes on to attack Delegated Proof of Stake.

The number of full nodes in EOS is going to be smaller. So Dan Larimer has this concept called DPOS where he says that in DPOS you only need about 100 nodes in the network and consensus happens among these full nodes and everyone else is a thin client. The other reason it (EOS) claims it can process more transactions is because the requirements (bandwidth, computing) for each of these full nodes is much higher. This is one way to achieve scalability.

The problem is that if you have 100 nodes the system is much more centralized. You can denial of service them. Because you have to vote for them, the nodes that win are going to be the nodes that everyone knows. So it is much easier to attack the people running the nodes. ISPs can shut them down, companies can shut them down, governments can shut it down fairly easily. That particular path to scalability does come at a fairly high cost and that cost is that if you try to achieve scalability by having larger nodes then the number of nodes becomes much smaller is that that makes the system more centralized.

His basic argument is that there are fewer full nodes and that they are easily identified and can be shut down by governments. He goes on to say that achieving scalability by having larger nodes makes the system more centralized. This of course demands a comparison, “more centralized than what”.

Here is the distribution of block producing nodes on Ethereum. As you can see two pools control 51% of the hash power and can trivially ignore blocks produced by all the other pools.

The next fact is that for all practical purposes ETH full nodes are already too resource intensive for the vast majority. On top of that almost all light clients don’t even bother with the merkle proofs that Vitalik claims are so valuable.

The fact of the matter is that when it comes to block producers, Ethereum and every other protocol is far more centralized than the DPOS blockchains; especially when you use meaningful definitions of centralization (such as number of unique producers per transaction confirmation window).

The Black Market

Vitalik’s final point is that DPOS can be shut down far more easily by governments, ISPs, and corporations. This point is built on top a foundation of false assumptions regarding decentralization that I have already proven above. The fact of the matter is that Ethereum and Bitcoin have already suffered denial of service attacks where as Steem and BitShares have not despite attempts to flood the network. As the pie chart above demonstrates, it would be trivial to cripple Ethereum’s network by taking out 90% of the hash power with 7 nodes.

The elephant in the room is that all of these public blockchains rely upon a peer-to-peer discovery process. Governments and ISPs around the world know exactly where every Ethereum node is and can trivially shutdown any and all public endpoints.

We have already established that Etheruem full nodes are too impractical at today’s scale. This means that real applications will be relying upon public API endpoints. The recent EOS Token Distribution application was sufficiently demanding to shut down all available public API endpoints.

The threat of government shutdown is based primarily on an assumption of illegal activity. We believe that there is a blue ocean of opportunities for legal blockchain applications that do not need to worry about a coordinated international effort to shut them down. Block producers and API endpoints can be setup in the most free jurisdictions


EOS is designed around far more realistic assumptions and logic and achieves scalability by avoiding the dogmatic fallacies promoted by Bitcoin and Ethereum maximalists. I have shown time and again that DPOS is more decentralized in practice by any real measure of decentralization. I have also shown that there are more options for light clients and that Vitalik’s claims of government resistance ignore fundamental properties and vulnerabilities of any public blockchain.

For those interested in the topic of decentralization you should read these blog posts of mine:


This is my sense as well - the points VB brought against EOS were trivial and have been addressed in the design of EOS. Considering how centralized Ethereum is vs Bitshares/Steem the DPOS slam is comical. Eth is complete garbage if your measuring stick is decentralization.

The fact of the matter is, in the 'real world', Bitshares and Steem are doing way, way better than Eth. We have every reason to expect EOS will perform the same or better, which means Eth is dead in about 12 months.

Im on this boat

great enough said bro

Yo thats what I'm saying brah! wayasayin

4 months left...............

Not really, if you watched the whole video he mentions that there will be plenty of room for all sorts of different decentralized models.

His critique isn't really "an attack" like Dan says, he just points out the difference in how the protocol is structured. I think dan makes a good point about ETH nodes in it's current state, but also ignores that each pool is made of hundreds if not thousands of potential nodes. All that being said ETH moves towards POS it will be way more decentralized than DPOS as far as a node structure.

All that being said ETH moves towards POS it will be way more decentralized than DPOS as far as a node structure.

I never understood this thought process. ETH's proposed POS consensus by definition is way more centralized than it's current POW algorithm

Haha yeah, obviously I respect and like the guy but one can't really argue he doesn't have bias due to his PoS

Dan and Vitalik is like Steve and Bill in 80s. Two great minds taking building future each in own way. We are tremendously lucky to have you both.

well put @cron

Agreed! The beauty is we get to watch their bickering/debating live and in the company of steemians

The future is right around the corner guys, we made it

Audience member to Vitalik "you are centralised.." ha!

Bang me please upvote my posting one only. Already tired my posting dolarnya very not increased. I implore very, my family is hungry please upvote every post me Mr @dan

What % of Steem holders, by number, have ever voted for a witness?

Also I posted your response to Vitalik's written post to facilitate.

I'm actually curious about this... maybe I'll write some code to run through accounts and see who is voting (or has a proxy voter) and who isn't along with their VEST weight. Might be quite an interesting stat indeed.

Yeah, I bring it up because I didn't even know how to for a few months and I'm probably in the top 10% of most tech sophisticated of Steemians if not much higher. Voter apathy is a big deal and we saw it in TheDAO too, and everything blockchain related. We're going to see bigtime in Tezos, and then when everyone delegates their votes to a few people, it will be highly centralized in a sticky way, more so than the typical ways that blockchains get centralized (limited clients, limited dev teams, thought leaders, etc). That's my fear at least.

Steem is so badly distributed that there's no really a reason to vote for +80% of the accounts. I'd like to see comparison of how well ETH is distributed compared to Steem.

My understanding is that all major cryptos are pretty close wrt gini coefficients but that looks at addresses, not actual people. None of them are that spread out, nor would it make sense if they are given how new this all is and how little the normal world cares about it.

They are all less well distributed than USD.

Bitcoin Ethereum and cryptocurrency gini coefficient numbers with no sources. . But I know him well enough to trust him

I wrote some code a couple months ago which shouldn't be too hard to modify a bit and then run through each account. If today wasn't Monday, I'd be on it right now. Silly work, keeping me busy from life. :) Maybe I'll take a half-day today with all the crypto drama going on.

Here's the answer I came up with:

We Have 7.5% Witness Voting Engagement.

Inactive Accounts: 178,339
Active Accounts with a Voting Proxy: 652
Active Accounts with at Least One Witness Vote: 7,233
Active Accounts with No Witness Votes: 105,076

You can see more details on this post, along with the top 100 active accounts by VEST who aren't yet voting for a witness.

Matches my expectations. Great work as always by you.

I find it quite surprising that @dan can make a comment on Steemit and get only 7 up votes and 0 comments. It seems that there would be hundreds of people wanting attention or to give thanks to the "creator" of Steemit or spammers looking for up votes/follows.....17 hours and not one comment....

I may not know what exactly this means, but it seems logical that either not many people are even reading many comments or comments down this far in the thread to realize @dan commented, or not noticing that he did.

Its also quite likely that because there are SO many NEW users that the majority of them don't even recognize who " @dan " really is?

Of course there are infinite possibilities. Yet it seems strange nonetheless.

I will also be interested to see how many people view this post, as it seems like every active user should at least check it out, if not read the whole thing and all comments. This is a very important topic/post from a very influential being.

It's so interesting to observe the interactions and choices of the masses.

Thanks for posting your DIRECT responses to statements made, here on Steemit and putting your words on the blockchain. I feel like I trust you, and that is very comforting.

I agree with you, but only because I think I see it more from your view. Stepping back, things are probably exactly as they should with votes and views if you look at the variety in user base of Steemit and how some Grandmother is on this site replacing her Facebook posts and doesn't know a crypto other than that one that hosted that one scary HBO show back in the day, I don't subscribe to that evil cable television so I don't know it's name for sure.

Yes, the free market always finds equilibrium and woks things out.
I have faith that this community will continue to fine tune and hone balance~*~

We can only measure that by accounts or by stake, not by individual persons. I guess those could probably be answered by a SELECT COUNT() query on SteemSQL.

I just voted for witness's the other day.. check my history :D

I'm impressed with the clarity and rationality you have responding to very intelligent people saying clearly ignorant (or at worse, purposefully false) statements. I hope this information spreads to get around all the FUD. Congrats on the token distribution so far. As I noted in my last EOS post, it may end up being the most widely distributed ICO ever, and you all appear to be hitting your goals nicely.

Thank You Dan & Luke, I trust You both & have watched most, if not all of the videos with Dan.

I'm hoping someday that Dan may meet , she is one of the smartest people I know regarding Banking AND actually offers SOLUTIONS for Central Banks/Fractional Reserve Banks... obviously she is not a program coder, but she could well offer some guidance regarding governance.

Her book is outstanding...

She's a lawyer by training & one of the more polite people You might meet.

BIG Kudos to Both You & Dan... Cheers !!

Charles Hoskinson, of IOHK and ETC and every single blockchain conference that will allow him to speak, stepped into the fray:

Dan's been making these kinds of unqualified statements for years with little tech or reason behind them. There is no formalism to his work nor any justification to his claims.

Raw performance without explaining what TPS means (not all transactions are created equally). No mention of what these numbers would mean from a network topology and Blockchain size viewpoint. Just 200 million dollars on forked code from bitshares and steem and a lot of promises.

I'd honestly ignore it until there is something worthwhile to talk about.

Dan's been making these kinds of unqualified statements for years with little tech or reason behind them. There is no formalism to his work nor any justification to his claims.

Huh? "little tech or reason behind them"? That's... so confusing to me. How is BitShares and Steem, two of the most performant blockchains in existence today by volume "little tech"? How are these not active justifications for his claims about DPOS?

Maybe I'm just not smart enough to understand the criticisms, but on the surface they seem ridiculous to me. Please help me see what I'm missing.

I don't trust Charles Hoskinson even a little because he is a snake-oil salesman and a self-promoter and a little unstable and he mainly wants to engage to pimp his own brand.

But he did work on Bitshares in the early days, he does have connection to a POS researcher out of Edinburgh, he was briefly involved in Ethereum before the crowdsale (he got fired for being shady or unreliable ), and he does insert himself into these things, when he isn't speaking at every and any conference that will give him airtime.

He does not seem like a self promoter to me. Every time I've seen someone ask him to speculate on the price of say, Cardano he has declined giving the reason that he's no good at price predictions. He's a great advocate of decentralization and I think we should be supporting him.

This is just the typically dismissive attitude of a complacent incumbent. It's more about psychology than the actual reasoning behind it.

Maybe, and maybe I'm falling for the same trap being a fan of DPOS / Bitshares / Steemit because I'm a member here and enjoy these technologies very much. That could be it, but we're also talking about code here. Code is law. To me, this is one of the few areas where we can actually have rational discussions (math is another one). The evidence is right there for anyone to see. Maybe they just aren't aware of the number of transactions and performance of graphene/DPOS systems? I dunno. Psychological explanations are one thing, but ignoring facts about systems which exist today seems to take it to a whole different level.

To claim DPOS has centralization problems when the exact opposite is true and very real concerns exist with ETH / BTC mining farms, it just seems beyond irrational to me. Again though, maybe I'm missing something crucial and am also being influenced by my bias.

“It is impossible to get a man to understand something if his livelihood depends on him not understanding.”
― Upton Sinclair

I'd honestly ignore it until there is something worthwhile to talk about.

Fair enough :-)

Same could be said about Charles tbh ;)

@dan be like

DPOS is the shit, but it seems to require a slightly better distribution initially so as to not concentrate power to absurdly. I have concerns about eth, which are why I'm currently not invested. Centralization seems intense over there.

How will EOS generate new tokens after the initial offering? I'm interested in how do you expect ownership distribution over time to change and do you think the plan in place will favor concentration or reach a different equilibrium. For example Steemit has 93% of the steem in the hands of 1% of the accounts (exclusive of the steemit account). How do you see distribution taking shape and where do you see it in the future?

How does recent rulings by the SEC saying ICOs are now under their domain effect your plans?

Lastly, I'm spent hundreds of hours on this platform and am thankful for your creation. Kudos. I'd also like to read more from you than just EOS topics. Hopefully you'll post a broader series of topics which encourage people to read on steemit, stay on steemit, and grow steemit as well as supporting EOS.

I think we have just found the true and real Ethereum killer. The struggle to discredit EOS is somewhat a cause for Vitalik

Thanks for making this post. I have been eager to see some comparisons between the two platforms.

Unfortunately, my skill set made this the best way I could contribute to a conversation that began with Merkle Trees:

Merkel Tree.jpg

Lol, you're so funny @lexiconical. I like you!😁

@dan dropping some truth on this one. It's great to hear straight from the source of how certain accusations of another network are false. Thank you for continuing to be active on the Steemit platform Dan. We appreciate it! Oh and thanks for building it! hahaha

Now don't get me wrong here people I like the concept of EOS and own a bit myself.

But... EOS itself does not exist yet, and is actually run on the Ethereum network platform for now right ? EOS' ICO only takes Ethereum as a form of trade/payment as well.

A decentralized platform is not helped at all by centralizing the nodes needed to confirm a transaction, no matter how many transactions are able to take place. Buterin does have a point here whether you like it or not and i don't see it so much as an attack but rather a credible criticism.

You can use all manner of meaningful criticisms you like but DPOS still reduces the overall number of points in the overall system that need to be coerced or corrupted to gain control of the network and/or cause harm to it.
Your 51% graph posted above does not take into account the numerous individuals within those pools that make up those pools, as opposed to just a hundred or so individual nodes as proposed in the DPOS network for EOS.

Vitalek Buterin is a very smart individual, as also is Dan Larimer and I would not want to bet against either of them in this game, and I don't as a matter of fact. I back both as much as I can.

But I do wonder why Buterin is still there with Ethereum and from the start, and Larimer keeps on moving on from one to the other instead of staying with a project.

Again I do like the concept of EOS and have sunk a lot of funds into it as well, but why is it run on the ETH platform if it is supposed to be an ETH KILLER ?
Why not get it up and running and give it 'Proof of Life' before raising over $200,000, 000 on the initial offering and then have a 12 month ICO before it is even a thing ?

Ethereum is often said to have scaling issues, but if you actually take a proper look at how ETH's transactions work you will find that they scale quite well as they are needed to as do the transaction fees.

Ethereum Killer ? ? ? Maybe in the future, but the first positive proof of that will be for EOS to leave the Ethereum Platform successfully.

Draw a map of points that need to be corrupted to compromise a network and/or cause harm and I assure you ETH has fewer points of corruption. Namely, I would corrupt the operators of the two largest pools and get a 51% attack.

ETH is delegated proof of work with 7 meaningfully elected positions with 2 controlling 51%

ETH recommends 12 confirmations, in a window of 12 blocks 7 will be produced by 2 people and the other 5 will be produced by 5 people for an average of 7 unique individuals confirming a transaction.

The economics of block production on ETH falls off dramatically once the number of blocks produced per day falls below the cost of operating a node. EOS and STEEM both have the same trail off on the long-tail which means that economically speaking, the total number of block producers will be the same in both systems. The difference is that DPOS makes sure the top 21 are all unique and equally weighted in each confirmation window (45 seconds) vs unequally weighted in each ETH confirmation window (3 minutes).

So do the math, their claims of decentralization and/or centralization are entirely bogus and unfounded.

The fact remains though that the narrower the points you place trust/confirmations in the chain the more chance there is of corruption or coercion. In your example you point to the 'operators' of said two pools while ignoring the makeup of said pools which could number in the thousands instead of the minimal numbers which would exist with DPOS, the math might be enticing but there is no way around the actual numbers which will confirm the overall chain history. You also ignore the ability of Ethereum transactions to increase with increased demand on the network as well.

No one I have asked the question of about EOS only existing on the Ethereum network as it exists now has answered that question either.
I don't want to fight with you people, I am one of you if you hadn't noticed . I have a couple of grand $AU invested already, but I do think that I have some legitimate questions to ask at least.

Why is EOS totally dependent on Ethereum to exist right now for a start ?

EOS doesn't exist on Ethereum. It is being developed. The Ethereum based tokens just represent EOS tokens when they become available, at which point they'll be exchanged for actual EOS tokens.

I don't think EOS is dependent on Ethereum. They could probably just as easily have released the tokens on Bitshares.

They could probably just as easily have released the tokens on Bitshares.

This is exactly the point @southerncross is trying to make: Why didn't they?

Thank you. I am still curious as to the answer, since it would seem to also promote BTS. However, perhaps the most likely one is "it would have raised less money" because Eth use > BTS use atm.

Because exchanges are more familiar with trading eth tokens, and trade is important for distribution to be closer to PoW by controlling price by making it too expensive to buy all coins. All done with goal of security later.

Looks like both reasons make sense.

In your example you point to the 'operators' of said two pools while ignoring the makeup of said pools which could number in the thousands instead of the minimal numbers which would exist with DPOS

Again, who are the "make up of said pools"? If you're talking about miners, the equivalent in DPOS is stakeholders (miners delegate their PoW vote, stakeholders delegate their stake vote). In both comparisons DPOS works out better. There is far higher stakeholder participation in Steem for example than the percentage of Bitcoin or Ethereum miners who contribute PoW. But neither miners nor stakeholders are actually involved in block production.

EOS doesn't exist now by choice. It could be started immediately using Graphene and have every change hard forked in, but that makes development slower so EOS will be matured somewhat prior to launch after the tokens on Ethereum have been frozen.

Great discussion and question. You seem to know a fair bit about EOS. If you come up with an answer, I hope you'll post about it.

Fenbushi invested in EOS with a reason I guess?

Your 51% graph posted above does not take into account the numerous individuals within those pools that make up those pools

Who are you referring to, the miners? Miners are no more involved in block production in Ethereum than stakeholders are in Steem and BitShares. The direct equivalent of Witnesses in Ethereum, those producing blocks, are the pool operators. Just like witnesses they can be multiple people in practice, but they function as a single entity. In practice there are more individual block producing entities in any given time frame in the DPOS blockchains than in any of the PoW or direct PoS blockchains.

As a result your prior statement is untrue, when measured empirically:

DPOS still reduces the overall number of points in the overall system that need to be coerced or corrupted to gain control of the network and/or cause harm to it.

The mining pools referred to above are made up of many individuals rather than voted for 'Nodes'. They may act as a single entity but only up to the point of their own self interest. And please tell me again what is the difference between thousands deciding on an outcome rather than hundreds deciding an outcome for everyone else concerned, other than a concentration of opinion and self interest ?

I am only approaching this from the point of view of liking the decentralization aspect of the blockchain, and I don't see EOS as embracing this aspect with it's centralized Nodes at all.

The future and the people will decide the eventual outcome in the end, but all the Ethereum Killer hype and bluster for what is now an ERC-20 token based solely and distributed solely for Ethereum alone is a bit of a story in itself for now.

I am not a hater at all, I just have questions is all, I own some EOS and am Intrigued by it's promises, but just don't get people buying it at $1.70 right now on exchanges when they can get it for less than .70 each day from the ICO right now.

Mining pools are nodes that are voted for. Witnesses can be several or hundreds of people just as easily as a mining pool can be.

I am not a hater at all

Nobody in this conversation has called you a hater, or derided you at all. You are simply incorrect on the matter of which system is more decentralized in reality (DPOS systems exist today, Steem and BitShares, and they are more not less decentralized than Bitcoin, Ethereum and other PoW and direct PoS systems).

You have not addressed anything at all here I have raised other than to throw in a red herring statement. Narrowing the pool of possible numbers that confirm contracts of the total chain is not a good thing to my mind, nor is it a positive move from decentralizing the overall aspect of blockchain.

Merely questioning such a move towards DPOS which is central to the EOS protocol is making yourself a target on such a post as evidenced in the reply's above and in the OP with such statements as Vitalek Attacks DPOS.

"Attacking DPOS
Next Vitalik goes on to attack Delegated Proof of Stake." From the OP.

People that get all excited about an ETHEREUM KILLER while pumping an ERC-20 token that exists solely on the ETHEREUM Platform and has an ICO that will run for the next 11 month's at least, and which deals only in ETHEREUM for it's Token need a reality check. Especially when people just come and ask questions.

Been buying EOS form the first period and can confirm that so far the cheapest price was $0.86 in first period and has been up since than but never $0.70.

Never the recent lows of the last few day's then at all, or all the rest of those day's at all either.
Don't forget there is still another 300 plus day's of sales still to come yet. Just one could net you thousands of EOS with just a single ETH if you are lucky.

But it all still rides on ETH to be worth anything as of yet.

vegolino's correct, it hasn't been that low recently, seems US $1.18 seems the lowest recently, according to - if you need a reason why the ICO was on ethereum, my best guess would be "that's where the money is". And if you want to raise capital, you "follow the money". Also, there's nothing to say they're holding all the proceeds in ETH either. For all we know, they've already withdrawn a big chunk of it to fiat as working capital.

If you want to make a case as to what the "right price is", well, that's a whole other issue, and quite separate from the technology itself. Put a low bid, and maybe you'll catch some at 10 cents in a flash crash, just like what happened a few weeks back on GDAX with ETH.

Pull up a historical price chart of STEEM, or another other crypto, or any stock for that matter. EOS will be no different in that regard, and there will more than likely be plenty of bumps along the way. Some will panic, others may see opportunity. Pick your spots as things unfold.

Other than that, I wouldn't posit to have any clue, except that from what I've seen so far, EOS does seem to be quite impressive, technologically speaking. And I even got a testnet up and running in a 3 euro / month VM, as described in my last post.

Good points, but I would like to correct you that EOS is an application platform itself and does not run on the Ethereum platform. Only the current EOS token is being distributed on the Ethereum platform because they're trying to keep EOS hands off, maintenance-free during development.

That's mostly what I want to say. More description below of my understanding if you want to read:

  1. Why have a token on Ethereum platform?

    • This was a decision by for optimal development progress. If they launched EOS platform and distributed tokens on the EOS platform, development speed will slow down dramatically due to maintenance of the platform. Making changes at that point becomes more difficult because once applications start using the EOS platform, EOS has to keep their users in mind for every change it wants to make.
  2. Then why have ICO over 12 month period now instead of after launch?

    • The current 12 month ICO is just a preliminary spreading of the seeds. Other ICOs do it too, crowdfund with little more than a whitepaper and promises. At least EOS is backed with years of knowledge from and technology of Bitshares and Steem. They don't need the money and its purpose is not crowdfunding. Its purpose is to broadly distribute the tokens for a fair, decentralized platform. It's also to provide publicity of the platform and time for the community to be familiarized with the project. Someone could technically write an application using the EOS platform before the launch and have it ready by the time EOS is launched. The ICO lasts a year because it mimics mining and makes it harder for whales to snatch better investments than everyone else.
  3. Will it be an Ethereum killer?

    • No one can say for sure. EOS, being an application platform, directly competes with Ethereum, but it depends on the technology of each and users of the platforms. If companies adopt the Ethereum platform for their smart contracts, but discover limitations, then discover that EOS does not have those limitations, then yes, EOS has the potential to be an Ethereum killer but who knows. These limitations are theoretical at this point since EOS hasn't launched yet, but the underlying technology of EOS seems sound to me. Others can fill you in here. But Ethereum can make a comeback. It's just unlikely for it to adopt large changes to the platform at this point since it already has many users and #2 market cap. Any changes Ethereum wants to make at this point has a lot of weight and a lot of consideration needs to be made. EOS can make any changes on the fly since it hasn't launched yet. This is why it's so important for EOS to continue development for a year, even though it could be launched now.
  4. Then is it good idea to invest in EOS?

    • Depends how much you trust them, in the terms, this current token on the Ethereum blockchain states: "EOS Tokens do not have any rights, uses, purpose, attributes, functionalities or features, express or implied. Although EOS Tokens may be tradable, they are not an investment, currency, security, commodity, a swap on a currency, security or commodity or any other kind of financial instrument."
      This may just be a technicality because they can't promise anything, but if these tokens CAN'T be traded for EOS tokens on the EOS Platform or have any value attached to the EOS Platform, then we might be screwed over. But otherwise, in my opinion yes, EOS is a good investment, maybe not the best, the potential for profit and ROI may not be astronomical like Ethereum was, but I believe EOS is still undervalued in the long-term. If EOS, after token distribution is done, ever becomes a tenth of what Ethereum is today, then if you bought in now, you would begin to profit. Personally I would either get in now for short-term investment because many people transferred large amounts of altcoins to BTC for the free BCC (Bitcoin Cash), and are likely to transfer back to altcoin after this, so I would expect altcoins to rise a bit in a few days (just my unprofessional speculation), or I would wait at least a few months since we might be on a decline and end of a bull run in the crypto space (again, speculation), but I wouldn't be surprised, especially with the 12-month distribution strategy, for EOS to drop further in value this year. Especially next year as EOS nears launch and people start questioning what this this token is worth since they claim in the terms that it has no value. On the other hand, even though EOS is competing with Ethereum, as an investor, I would consider investing in both Ethereum and EOS. If you believe in the application platform technology, it doesn't matter which one wins out, you'll profit because one will skyrocket.

Great stuff, thank you.

LOL. I just sold some more ETH for EOS. Keep it up @dan!

fight fight

Dpos is still less decentralized than would be ideal and does not change by pointing at possible problems with other blockchains. Those eth mining pools can consist of hundreds of miners who can switch at a whim.

And EOS block producers consist of thousands of voters who can switch even faster.

Something to emphasize then instead of pointing fingers. EOS will definitely do great things and find its niche be it the whole world or within corporations.

Thx for sharing

Does this mean that Vitalik does not know much about EOS yet? - this is what it looks to me like he is kinda making up some what he says hmmmm

BTS and Steem each handle more transactions than BTC and ETH combined. Vitalik should be worried.

Thanks Dan, dont stress about the nay sayers the proof will be in the pudding!! keep on trucking mate!
i love the idea behind EOS so much i wrote an article on it what do you think?

Here is the distribution of block producing nodes on Ethereum.

Irrelevant. Not once did you mention casper, which is all that matters long term in comparison to DPOS.

Also, people with a large stake in the system don't automatically do what is best for the system. Hitler was a billionaire.

casper mentioned in 2nd part:

Casper is highly centralized and punishes dissent. Additionally casper distribution was through 72% premine and ICO - both worst possible methods enforcing centralization further

Finally, casper in no way avoids the same complete eth centralization demonstrated during bailout

Legalize drugs making black markets obsolete,

@dan isn't Vitalik also a developer of EOS through Fenbushi Capital?

Thank you for all your good work.. People like you is the reason why there is hope for the future. Resteemed

I had my doubts about EOS with the us ip block and the EOS fake scammer sites in the beginning and I backed off. But recently poured 30% of my ETH holding in EOS until June of next year, I see at least a 500% growth in that time.

Great post Dan!

I'd put half of my ETH to EOS to avoid FOMO xD

I put almost all of my Eth in EOS, once the ICO's start cashing out I think Etherieum will crash (which might be a good time to buy)

What this means is that Vitalik has concede that EOS can be a challenger for Ethereum. That is a good sign for me :)

All the best @dan. Keep up the good work. Let us hope that The trilogy of Steem, Bitshares and EOS will lead the way forward in Cryptocurrency field.

It is always good to hear two sides of a story and I am really thankful that you addressed the points from Vitalik. Thanks for your response, this really increases my faith in the usability and advantages of EOS.

Ethereum worries me in general...

i love post you Response to Vitalik Buterin on EOS

Still a huge EOS fan. One are the ERC20 tokens for EOS going to be converted onto the actual EOS blockchain?

We have placed your lovely article

People! This fighting means ETH will get down :/

Hey can you help me quickly ! A man give my real identity
and he DownVote all of my post... his name's Monkyy

As a recent buyer of EOS and a fan of all Crypto. I would not be to worried about EOS. If anything with EOS right on Ethereums tail I think that Vitalik is somewhat concerned. He should be because if anyone has better tech they will improve the token for everyone.

Very interesting article. While reading this I remember the movie "The Nerve"

nice post follow me i will follow you back

Congratulations for your excellent post, I invite you to follow us and we grow faster, greetings

Lots to think about . Thank you for bringing this to attention .

Thank you sir for correcting these points based on real facts.
TBH i don't know where is he getting these "assumptions."
More power to EOS!

(He still creeps me out... -_-)

Very enjoyable read in big hopes for the future of EOS

Hello @dan, actually I have been researching a bit deeper in Ethereum these days (Well I am quite a newbie on all these crypto world, am sorry for that) and I would just have your feedback about a big news currently the talk of the town in Mauritius, have you guys heard about Ethereum Island?
I have made a post on it and apparently it is going forward with many meetings already been held in Mauritius!
You can check it here if you wish
Best regards

This is going really well!!!

all of these chains will be shut down as they are the addtional layer to the ISP layer

This Post was Added to the Steemit Social Media Queue.

Ethereum has been working on improvement with the existing platform and beIng a creater of smart contract. EOS in comparison, has no product/Platform yet whIch gives chance to build better platform based on Ethereum. It is healthy competition I think. Both can survive if there are different use cases or if they compete on the same, and users will decide.
I hope both will success! Revolution isn't happening in a short time. Bitcoin took long time to come to effect the idea of digital cash since 90's and it's still not confirmed if it can be used as currency yet.

Hey dan! Just want to let you know I support you and everything you believe and work for. Hope EOS gets released soon, can't wait to develop on it and make blockchain work mainstream!

Very nice and much needed response. I'll make sure to take a look at these other posts you mentioned at the end.

I just said this on your other post moments ago but others hopefully that miss that, will see this and it is relative:

Dan knows most of this code talk is above my head but I have been getting the sense for awhile now, even though I cannot follow everything, that EOS is scaring a lot of the big players / older players and tech in the market.

I have pointed out recently, I find it interesting not many people are talking about the fact either that Dan has 3 projects in the Top 20 coins in Crypto...... and I do not think anyone else can actually say that.

It dawned on me the last few weeks one day looking at in the bloodshed markets..... trying to find silver linings.

Thanks Dan.

dan,EOS GO

The incumbent being oblivious to details about the potential disruptor is always a good sign for the disruptor.

Although it's funny to call Ethereum an incumbent when it doesn't really have users in practice. It has ICO's and some gambling applications that actually work, everything else requires oracles which is a problem Ethereum has not yet solved. Steem has far more actual usage going on, but it isn't a generalized smart contract platform.

Interesting post. I will be here to keep on seeing the good news. Thanks for the info.

For a human being to start pointing the negative about something new is ALWAYS because of fear. EOS is shaping to be what Ethereum promised with its idea.

He is afraid that the potential of EOS is enormous and may kick ETH out of the game, or take a big chunk of its pie.

Why two genius always oppose! I think @dan is the front runner this time.


If Vitalik has to fight EOS off now, long before it is active, then ETH is worried. Just listen to him try to explain, hemming and hawing. ETH is going down.

Yes, this is what's happening. ETH is bloated, vulnerable and written in an obscure language. It will be disrupted, unless of course Gov. & big corporations adopt it and back it making it one of the "legal" platforms.

I like EOS, but I don't know if he is fighting them off. If I understand it correctly, he was asked for his opinion.

I'm definitely not taking sides, however. :D

I agree. Plus there has been so much hype around, Vitalik... people saying he's a genius, so young, etc, that for him I think this is all very personal.

Good read, but remember at one point gold was outlawed in USA! So crypto might become illegal just for the sake of central banks!

Absolutely excellent response(s), @dan. This is how you properly ensure a revolution keeps its footing and trudges progressively into the future.

Major respect. Keep up the good work. This is the "good fight."

Yep ! I myself, not being an engineer could challenge Vitalik on some of his point regarding government easily shutting dowm EOS or Steem node... so trivial. I notice a lot non consistent argument in the Bitcoin & Ethereum Community...VB is a highly talented but too much mathematics, cryptographics and politics in could kill the projet

Im on this boat too

interesting article

The answer to “more centralized than what[?]” is definitely not the current pool mined, PoW based reality of Ethereum. I think it was quite clear that Vitalik was comparing DPoS to what will be ethereum's own PoS when Casper is out.

Comparing DPoS to the current state of ethereum is similar to saying:

"A startup named 'Space EOS' is working towards building rockets that can go to Mars. Current rockets made by 'Space XTH' can only reach the moon. Then, 'Space EOS' is much better than Space XTH"

Thank you for posting @dan.

This detailed response to Vitalik Buterin is appreciated ....point by point.

The information regarding the possibility of ETH nodes being able to be shut down by governments is enlightening.

.....…bringing up these queries;

How safe are programs built on the Graphene Blockchain from such an the difference between public and private does one distinguish the difference?

Kind Regards, bleujay.

smart on hacking/algorithm, stupid in governmental policies, finance and other things, all of you including BM and Vita

maybe it's just me but that video first lost me when they stopped speaking english until if figured out the caption button but then who ever did the writing ( and yes the people did talk quite fast at times but the text is added in editing mode right ? ) did not put in every word used like one guy said thank you for something and that did not make in the text, also I can see so many enlish teachers from the 70's or 40's either rolling in there graves or shaking heads at the run on sentence or paragraph. I don't think a single period or comma was used and it read like only one person was talking. I had to stop the video at 7:33 because the explanation using burgers confused the heck out of me. :( I hope the people who sat through this understood this talk and came away with good info to use cause I'm just left confused, the only thing I understood was don't over spend when investing. I hope I can better understand the words that fallow the video as I've not read that yet. thanks for sharing

This is just the typically dismissive attitude of a complacent incumbent. It's more about psychology than the actual reasoning behind it.

"We have already established that Etheruem full nodes are too impractical at today’s scale. This means that real applications will be relying upon public API endpoints. The recent EOS Token Distribution application was sufficiently demanding to shut down all available public API endpoints."

Oh that's so cold, I love it...

Thanks Dan!!!

"We have already established that Etheruem ..." -> Ethereum :)

I'd like to hear Vitalik and Larimer have a discussion about this! Now that would be interesting

This gives us one more reason to support the EOS platform.

where is the picture from about the full nodes? I can't find a source saying that only tw onodes rund over 51%

I view ether as gas where there won't be a reason to hold an amount other than what may be required to perform transactions for other alt-coins, EOS startup tokens, etc that one may be holding.

This was an EPIC conversation between two geeks. One pointed out the flaws and the other response in an nice way with valid proofs.

But the real challenge is EOS should not be too late delivering the solutions, else people with start distrusting them as they don't have anything concrete.

what happens if vitalik gets a girlfriend?

What about RANDOM voting for delegates?

That seems to fix these delegation problems. Not only does it fix the low-participation vote problem, but also makes it so you can’t even choose your vote for a delegate, so can’t choose yourself.

What’s wrong with randomly voted-in delegates to fix these dPoS problems?

Just watch the video and the article. Thumb up !

Dan the man