Does this representation of Nu as a DAC seems right / useful to you?

[Raythma]

[creon]

Hmmm there is actually no difference in the node connectivity between Bitcoin, Peercoin and Nu. You could visualize all of them as (D) if you put the minting / mining nodes in the sphere and pure relay nodes outside the sphere.

The difference between distributed and decentralized is furthermore not well defined. During my “distributed systems” lecture my professor defined distributed as a system where each node is directly connected to every other node, while a decentralized systems only require a route between nodes that may go over other nodes. But these definitions are not set in stone and the literature uses the terms not very distinctively.

[cryptog]

Not really.
To me it is all decentralized or distributed as long as it is blockchain-based and as long as every node can participate into the blocks verification…

[cryptog]

So swap bitcoin and nubits

[Raythma]

You could visualize all of them as (D) if you put the minting / mining nodes in the sphere and pure relay nodes outside the sphere.

The Difference is that minting is very accessible at Peercoin for any Peercoin user, while Minting in Nu needs purchasing more than 10K NSR and Mining in Bitcoin practically needs a huge amount of computational power.

To me it is all decentralized or distributed as long as it is blockchain-based and as long as every node can participate into the blocks verification

But still, Bitcoin Miners control the network present and future through transaction fees and protocol adoption, Nushares holders control NuBits supply, transaction fees and any other motions, while Peercoin users directly controls the networks future just by holding Peercoins and choosing to adopt sunny king’s updates or not!

[Raythma]

Bitcoin Miners are not a single group communicating and seeking a mutual interest like Nushares holders, may be we should change the miners node size to refer to the growing centralization of computing power though.

[GreatScott]

I think part of the explanation behind the NuBits image is that the shareholders are the minting nodes (securing the network), whereas the general public are the end users. If I were drawing it, the outermost ‘stations’ would have branches coming off of them as well, like figure B.

Say for example one of the outermost points is NuBitPay’s node. They do not necessarily own shares to mint blocks of transactions, but they do broadcast transactions and route them to we the shareholders to add to a block.

[creon]

The Difference is that minting is very accessible at Peercoin for any Peercoin user

Although Peercoin doesn’t have the limitation on the transaction output as Nu, there is of course a minimal amount of PPC that is required to make staking practical (i.e. to find a block in reasonable time), which depends on the difficulty. That’s not different to Bitcoin, where I also still can try to solomine with my CPU.

But I agree that the minimum of 10k shares kind of puts Nu in a separate position.

If I were drawing it, the outermost ‘stations’ would have branches coming off of them as well

Right, that would make this more clear. I mean even though NuBits owner have no influence on the block generation in any way, they still play an important role in the healthiness of the network. Each NuBit owner can validate every transaction within blocks and the stake used in the block generation. Furthermore they can reject or accept and incoming transactions to the memory pool. So while NBT clients are not directly able to create a fork, they have a strong influence on the effect of a fork once the network split occurred.