Author Topic: Raising the quantity of BTS witnesses & the introduction of vote degradation?  (Read 9292 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12920
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
It seems I failed to make my self clear: For sure, I would love to see more active Witnesses, but given how much people have contributed in the past for free in their spare time, I oppose throwing money at witnesses for just being witnesses and not actually doing anything for the money they get except the "very basic" things. I'd rather see competition among witnesses and fresh blood.
It's not perse that I am against raising the pay, but, I would prefer them to show more efforts FIRST!

Offline Thom

@Taconator specifically mentioned this thread on the BitShares specific mumble this morning, but unfortunately no further posts have been made here in almost 2 weeks.

@xeroc has weighed in now that he opposes an increases in witness pay, tho he has not explained why in detail.

He did mention he believes the feed accuracy problem is no longer a problem, but again no data to support that perspective.

I'm beginning to believe there is a lot of reliance on the info from Telegram or other sources as being more influential that this forum. I find that very disturbing. As I've said, Telegram is a   r e a l  t i m e   only platform and it's not good for making decisions and hashing out proposals.

This forum's biggest limitation is its antiquated UI / UX. It is even better than Telegram regarding the multilingual problem, yet Telegram is the most popular platform for discussions.

Is there a typical time of day that people tend to appear to talk on Telegram? I was on it last night & it was totally dead. Perhaps if some of you that use Telegram frequently would chime in here and give us your impression of good times to tune in there where you see the most activity.     
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere - MLK |  Verbaltech2 Witness Reports: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,23902.0.html

Offline Thom

There some interesting ideas here, certainly worth considering. I do think it needs better definition tho, especially regarding technical requirements and "diversity", which should also include vendor independence.

Another thing, glad to see info being brought over from the fast moving and hard to keep up with the *DEX Telegram channel.

I'm firmly of the opinion that any conversation of substance needs to be represented here. Telegram is good, useful, just not so much for hashing out such details and proposals. OK for them to start wherever, but I can't keep up with convos there 24x7. It's good for real time, not very good unless you are online and participating AS THE CONVO TAKES PLACE.

We are a global community spanning every timezone. This forum has its' limitations, but geography and time are not among them.
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere - MLK |  Verbaltech2 Witness Reports: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,23902.0.html

Offline tbone

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 632
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: tbone2
(....)
We should be brainstorming new ideas regarding how we can drive up voter participation in the future, such as holding informal fun polls (favourite colour, community mvp polls, etc).

The Gridcoin network is also experiencing a lack of voting participation - only 1/7th of total vote weight votes which brings the validity of poll results mandate into question.

Why not give up the idea of ​​voting.
Maybe we should make the algorithm to vote.

Eg.
A candidate for the witness would have to meet certain requirements.
This is my suggestion:

The maximum possible total score to achieve 1000

The first criterion: proof of geographical dispersion.
The maximum possible score to achieve 300
we want a large scatter in different countries and on different continents
(We need a developers discussion  how to achieve it.)


The second criterion: proof of resources (computing power) and net speed
The maximum possible score to achieve 300
Threshold of 50%, if not achieved, the candidate is eliminated completely.


The third criterion: proof of commitment
The candidate must provide prices feeds for MPA
The maximum possible score to achieve 300


The fourth criterion: proof of reputation
The maximum possible score to achieve 100
Points as a result of vote

The first (eg.) 50 candidates will be witnesses, and receives a salary.
The next (eg.) Of 150 candidates will not be witnesses and receives some less pay for it that they are ready to become a node in case of failure of other nodes


This is really along the lines of a conversation that took place in Telegram yesterday (today for some people).  It makes a lot of sense.  I think the main thing missing is a bond i.e. locking away a certain amount of BTS in order to qualify as a witness.  Some people said it should be minimum of 1M BTS.  I'm personally not sure it should be mandatory.  But I do think it should at least be part of a scoring system such as the one you laid out.  Actually, come to think of it, there should probably be mandatory minimums for all criteria, and anything over the minimum raises the score.  Anyway, I made a couple of comments next to some of your criteria (see comments in red below).

By the way, i also like your idea of having some small pay for backup witnesses.  I was talking about that in Telegram a week or so ago.  Anyway, since you suggest they should get some pay, I assume they would be producing some blocks.  If so, what percentage, maybe 5-10%?  This would be a good opportunity for back up witnesses (or "witness candidates") to earn some reputation and perhaps prove he can reach some initial scoring thresholds. 


Quote
The first criterion: proof of geographical dispersion.
The maximum possible score to achieve 300
we want a large scatter in different countries and on different continents
(We need a developers discussion  how to achieve it.)

This seems tricky, could leave it out at least initially.

The second criterion: proof of resources (computing power) and net speed
The maximum possible score to achieve 300
Threshold of 50%, if not achieved, the candidate is eliminated completely.

Does this include latency?  And what about taking server uptime into account?  How feasible is it to measure these metrics?  Well, latency seems straightforward.  But what about the others?
Latency - Yes!
Server uptime - Yes!

How feasible is it to measure these metrics?  Well, latency seems straightforward.  But what about the others?
Maybe network could send some random( task ) to calculate, once peer random(X days, XX days ). The task should bey predictable within 1s - 10s max seconds (maybe something like pice of "Multicore Super Pi Benchmark" but CPU + RAM )
It could also be that some post-witness-installation, or trustless self test



The third criterion: proof of commitment
The candidate must provide prices feeds for MPA
The maximum possible score to achieve 300

Maybe this should include missed blocks?  And perhaps call this proof of ability or proof of work.  Proof of commitment should perhaps be locking funds, no?
agree

The fourth criterion: proof of reputation
The maximum possible score to achieve 100
Points as a result of vote

The first (eg.) 50 candidates will be witnesses, and receives a salary.
The next (eg.) Of 150 candidates will not be witnesses and receives some less pay for it that they are ready to become a node in case of failure of other nodes
it's just outline

Do you want to rewrite your outline with the changes?  In the meantime, I'm asking @Chris4210 if he can put this on his radar.

Offline fractalnode

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 107
    • View Profile
(....)
We should be brainstorming new ideas regarding how we can drive up voter participation in the future, such as holding informal fun polls (favourite colour, community mvp polls, etc).

The Gridcoin network is also experiencing a lack of voting participation - only 1/7th of total vote weight votes which brings the validity of poll results mandate into question.

Why not give up the idea of ​​voting.
Maybe we should make the algorithm to vote.

Eg.
A candidate for the witness would have to meet certain requirements.
This is my suggestion:

The maximum possible total score to achieve 1000

The first criterion: proof of geographical dispersion.
The maximum possible score to achieve 300
we want a large scatter in different countries and on different continents
(We need a developers discussion  how to achieve it.)


The second criterion: proof of resources (computing power) and net speed
The maximum possible score to achieve 300
Threshold of 50%, if not achieved, the candidate is eliminated completely.


The third criterion: proof of commitment
The candidate must provide prices feeds for MPA
The maximum possible score to achieve 300


The fourth criterion: proof of reputation
The maximum possible score to achieve 100
Points as a result of vote

The first (eg.) 50 candidates will be witnesses, and receives a salary.
The next (eg.) Of 150 candidates will not be witnesses and receives some less pay for it that they are ready to become a node in case of failure of other nodes


This is really along the lines of a conversation that took place in Telegram yesterday (today for some people).  It makes a lot of sense.  I think the main thing missing is a bond i.e. locking away a certain amount of BTS in order to qualify as a witness.  Some people said it should be minimum of 1M BTS.  I'm personally not sure it should be mandatory.  But I do think it should at least be part of a scoring system such as the one you laid out.  Actually, come to think of it, there should probably be mandatory minimums for all criteria, and anything over the minimum raises the score.  Anyway, I made a couple of comments next to some of your criteria (see comments in red below).

By the way, i also like your idea of having some small pay for backup witnesses.  I was talking about that in Telegram a week or so ago.  Anyway, since you suggest they should get some pay, I assume they would be producing some blocks.  If so, what percentage, maybe 5-10%?  This would be a good opportunity for back up witnesses (or "witness candidates") to earn some reputation and perhaps prove he can reach some initial scoring thresholds. 


Quote
The first criterion: proof of geographical dispersion.
The maximum possible score to achieve 300
we want a large scatter in different countries and on different continents
(We need a developers discussion  how to achieve it.)

This seems tricky, could leave it out at least initially.

The second criterion: proof of resources (computing power) and net speed
The maximum possible score to achieve 300
Threshold of 50%, if not achieved, the candidate is eliminated completely.

Does this include latency?  And what about taking server uptime into account?  How feasible is it to measure these metrics?  Well, latency seems straightforward.  But what about the others?
Latency - Yes!
Server uptime - Yes!

How feasible is it to measure these metrics?  Well, latency seems straightforward.  But what about the others?
Maybe network could send some random( task ) to calculate, once peer random(X days, XX days ). The task should bey predictable within 1s - 10s max seconds (maybe something like pice of "Multicore Super Pi Benchmark" but CPU + RAM )
It could also be that some post-witness-installation, or trustless self test



The third criterion: proof of commitment
The candidate must provide prices feeds for MPA
The maximum possible score to achieve 300

Maybe this should include missed blocks?  And perhaps call this proof of ability or proof of work.  Proof of commitment should perhaps be locking funds, no?
agree

The fourth criterion: proof of reputation
The maximum possible score to achieve 100
Points as a result of vote

The first (eg.) 50 candidates will be witnesses, and receives a salary.
The next (eg.) Of 150 candidates will not be witnesses and receives some less pay for it that they are ready to become a node in case of failure of other nodes


it's just outline
« Last Edit: January 20, 2017, 04:13:28 pm by FractalNode »

Offline R

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 841
    • View Profile
Quick update regarding the 'GRIDCOIN' MPA - The Gridcoin price fluctuated, triggered a black swan state and the asset has been stuck in said state ever since: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,22733.msg299091.html#msg299091

It has however opened the door to new developments by PC regarding MPA resiliency to black swan events. Once these new changes are in effect, the Gridcoin community will reactivate the market pegged asset, requiring more witnesses to produce the price feed.

Prior to the black swan event we only had 2 or 3 witnesses out of 25 (27?), whilst changing the witness count may be a dangerous idea the concept of vote weight degradation over time for witnesses and committee members is still sound.

What does everyone think?
I do think a UIA fits more in Gridcoin's situation, perhaps with a special owner/committee like the STEALTH asset (check https://cryptofresh.com/u/stealth-mgmt , the owner is a multi-sig account, automatically controlled by top 5 holders)
We've already got an EBA (OPEN.GRC), issuing an UIA would inflate the GRC coinsupply (unlikely to fly with the GRC network unless we burnt GRC before project-raining an GRC UIA).
We're waiting for the blackswan hardening features to be implemented within BTS early this year, when the changes are implemented we will revive the GRIDCOIN MPA even if it's risky.

This is off topic though, back to the main point - vote degradation!

People are talking about increasing the block rewards for witnesses to encourage more active/productive witnesses: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,23702.0.html

Surely degrading votes over say 4-6 months would encourage witnesses to continuously campaign for their positions and open the door for new witnesses to potentially gain power?

Getting witnesses to add price feeds for the GRIDCOIN MPA was like pulling teeth  - witnesses should be far more active & inactivity should have consequences, even if their witness node is healthy.

I think vote degradation may be a problem if there isn't a ton of voter participation to begin with.  Also, I think @pc made a good argument against degradation earlier in the thread.

By the way, I wonder if witnesses have been reluctant to offer price feeds for Gridcoin MPA because they think MPA is the wrong way to go.  I tend to agree with that.  A cryptocuyrrency is not the best use case for an MPA, especially an MPA that will have difficult gaining liquidity.  Why not issue a UIA?  You could get rid of your blockchain and replace the coins with a committee-controlled UIA.  Then you could focus on maintaining/developing your BOINC software rather then futzing around with a blockchain, which has nothing to do with your core competency.   Anyway, just my 2 cents.
If there's not a ton of voter participation to begin with then surely DPOS is not an effective mechanism for voting witnesses into/out of power? Currently witnesses are voted in and unless they turn malicious/incompetent they never lose their position, thus competition stalls and witnesses contribute the minimum required of their role. By introducing vote degradation(over a long time say 6 months), witnesses would have to at least post an update once in a while to show they're still alive in the community. It'd revitalize the democratic aspect of DPOS.

Should it really be up to witnesses to make decisions that prevent alternative cryptocurrencies from utilizing the full features of bitshares? If it was like pulling teeth for GRC, will all other alternative cryptocurrencies face opposition from these individuals? Surely we want as many assets being traded on the DEX as possible, no? Had we never attempted the MPA, BTS would not be pursuing improvments to blackswan handling: https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-core/issues/216 This'd have been far worse if it had affected bitUSD.

I've mentioned in previous posts why we won't be pursuing an UIA. Gridcoin is a seperate community & project from BOINC, we do not contribute towards its development and by issuing an UIA for BOINC computation we would be introducing centralization where there is currently decentralization. There will certainly be BOINC UIAs issued in the future (project rain), but GRC will not be migrating to an UIA.

Edit: Relevant github issue: https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-ui/issues/29
« Last Edit: January 20, 2017, 12:47:25 pm by crypto123 »

Offline tbone

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 632
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: tbone2
(....)
We should be brainstorming new ideas regarding how we can drive up voter participation in the future, such as holding informal fun polls (favourite colour, community mvp polls, etc).

The Gridcoin network is also experiencing a lack of voting participation - only 1/7th of total vote weight votes which brings the validity of poll results mandate into question.

Why not give up the idea of ​​voting.
Maybe we should make the algorithm to vote.

Eg.
A candidate for the witness would have to meet certain requirements.
This is my suggestion:

The maximum possible total score to achieve 1000

The first criterion: proof of geographical dispersion.
The maximum possible score to achieve 300
we want a large scatter in different countries and on different continents
(We need a developers discussion  how to achieve it.)


The second criterion: proof of resources (computing power) and net speed
The maximum possible score to achieve 300
Threshold of 50%, if not achieved, the candidate is eliminated completely.


The third criterion: proof of commitment
The candidate must provide prices feeds for MPA
The maximum possible score to achieve 300


The fourth criterion: proof of reputation
The maximum possible score to achieve 100
Points as a result of vote

The first (eg.) 50 candidates will be witnesses, and receives a salary.
The next (eg.) Of 150 candidates will not be witnesses and receives some less pay for it that they are ready to become a node in case of failure of other nodes


This is really along the lines of a conversation that took place in Telegram yesterday (today for some people).  It makes a lot of sense.  I think the main thing missing is a bond i.e. locking away a certain amount of BTS in order to qualify as a witness.  Some people said it should be minimum of 1M BTS.  I'm personally not sure it should be mandatory.  But I do think it should at least be part of a scoring system such as the one you laid out.  Actually, come to think of it, there should probably be mandatory minimums for all criteria, and anything over the minimum raises the score.  Anyway, I made a couple of comments next to some of your criteria (see comments in red below).

By the way, i also like your idea of having some small pay for backup witnesses.  I was talking about that in Telegram a week or so ago.  Anyway, since you suggest they should get some pay, I assume they would be producing some blocks.  If so, what percentage, maybe 5-10%?  This would be a good opportunity for back up witnesses (or "witness candidates") to earn some reputation and perhaps prove he can reach some initial scoring thresholds. 


Quote
The first criterion: proof of geographical dispersion.
The maximum possible score to achieve 300
we want a large scatter in different countries and on different continents
(We need a developers discussion  how to achieve it.)

This seems tricky, could leave it out at least initially.

The second criterion: proof of resources (computing power) and net speed
The maximum possible score to achieve 300
Threshold of 50%, if not achieved, the candidate is eliminated completely.

Does this include latency?  And what about taking server uptime into account?  How feasible is it to measure these metrics?  Well, latency seems straightforward.  But what about the others?

The third criterion: proof of commitment
The candidate must provide prices feeds for MPA
The maximum possible score to achieve 300

Maybe this should include missed blocks?  And perhaps call this proof of ability or proof of work.  Proof of commitment should perhaps be locking funds, no?


The fourth criterion: proof of reputation
The maximum possible score to achieve 100
Points as a result of vote

The first (eg.) 50 candidates will be witnesses, and receives a salary.
The next (eg.) Of 150 candidates will not be witnesses and receives some less pay for it that they are ready to become a node in case of failure of other nodes




Offline tbone

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 632
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: tbone2
Quick update regarding the 'GRIDCOIN' MPA - The Gridcoin price fluctuated, triggered a black swan state and the asset has been stuck in said state ever since: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,22733.msg299091.html#msg299091

It has however opened the door to new developments by PC regarding MPA resiliency to black swan events. Once these new changes are in effect, the Gridcoin community will reactivate the market pegged asset, requiring more witnesses to produce the price feed.

Prior to the black swan event we only had 2 or 3 witnesses out of 25 (27?), whilst changing the witness count may be a dangerous idea the concept of vote weight degradation over time for witnesses and committee members is still sound.

What does everyone think?
I do think a UIA fits more in Gridcoin's situation, perhaps with a special owner/committee like the STEALTH asset (check https://cryptofresh.com/u/stealth-mgmt , the owner is a multi-sig account, automatically controlled by top 5 holders)
We've already got an EBA (OPEN.GRC), issuing an UIA would inflate the GRC coinsupply (unlikely to fly with the GRC network unless we burnt GRC before project-raining an GRC UIA).
We're waiting for the blackswan hardening features to be implemented within BTS early this year, when the changes are implemented we will revive the GRIDCOIN MPA even if it's risky.

This is off topic though, back to the main point - vote degredation!

People are talking about increasing the block rewards for witnesses to encourage more active/productive witnesses: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,23702.0.html

Surely degrading votes over say 4-6 months would encourage witnesses to continuously campaign for their positions and open the door for new witnesses to potentially gain power?

Getting witnesses to add price feeds for the GRIDCOIN MPA was like pulling teeth  - witnesses should be far more active & inactivity should have consequences, even if their witness node is healthy.

I think vote degradation may be a problem if there isn't a ton of voter participation to begin with.  Also, I think @pc made a good argument against degradation earlier in the thread.

By the way, I wonder if witnesses have been reluctant to offer price feeds for Gridcoin MPA because they think MPA is the wrong way to go.  I tend to agree with that.  A cryptocuyrrency is not the best use case for an MPA, especially an MPA that will have difficult gaining liquidity.  Why not issue a UIA?  You could get rid of your blockchain and replace the coins with a committee-controlled UIA.  Then you could focus on maintaining/developing your BOINC software rather then futzing around with a blockchain, which has nothing to do with your core competency.   Anyway, just my 2 cents.


Offline fractalnode

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 107
    • View Profile
(....)
We should be brainstorming new ideas regarding how we can drive up voter participation in the future, such as holding informal fun polls (favourite colour, community mvp polls, etc).

The Gridcoin network is also experiencing a lack of voting participation - only 1/7th of total vote weight votes which brings the validity of poll results mandate into question.

Why not give up the idea of ​​voting.
Maybe we should make the algorithm to vote.

Eg.
A candidate for the witness would have to meet certain requirements.
This is my suggestion:

The maximum possible total score to achieve 1000

The first criterion: proof of geographical dispersion.
The maximum possible score to achieve 300
we want a large scatter in different countries and on different continents
(We need a developers discussion  how to achieve it.)

The second criterion: proof of resources (computing power) and net speed
The maximum possible score to achieve 300
Threshold of 50%, if not achieved, the candidate is eliminated completely.

The third criterion: proof of commitment
The candidate must provide prices feeds for MPA
The maximum possible score to achieve 300

The fourth criterion: proof of reputation
The maximum possible score to achieve 100
Points as a result of vote

The first (eg.) 50 candidates will be witnesses, and receives a salary.
The next (eg.) Of 150 candidates will not be witnesses and receives some less pay for it that they are ready to become a node in case of failure of other nodes

Offline R

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 841
    • View Profile
Quick update regarding the 'GRIDCOIN' MPA - The Gridcoin price fluctuated, triggered a black swan state and the asset has been stuck in said state ever since: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,22733.msg299091.html#msg299091

It has however opened the door to new developments by PC regarding MPA resiliency to black swan events. Once these new changes are in effect, the Gridcoin community will reactivate the market pegged asset, requiring more witnesses to produce the price feed.

Prior to the black swan event we only had 2 or 3 witnesses out of 25 (27?), whilst changing the witness count may be a dangerous idea the concept of vote weight degradation over time for witnesses and committee members is still sound.

What does everyone think?
I do think a UIA fits more in Gridcoin's situation, perhaps with a special owner/committee like the STEALTH asset (check https://cryptofresh.com/u/stealth-mgmt , the owner is a multi-sig account, automatically controlled by top 5 holders)
We've already got an EBA (OPEN.GRC), issuing an UIA would inflate the GRC coinsupply (unlikely to fly with the GRC network unless we burnt GRC before project-raining an GRC UIA).
We're waiting for the blackswan hardening features to be implemented within BTS early this year, when the changes are implemented we will revive the GRIDCOIN MPA even if it's risky.

This is off topic though, back to the main point - vote degredation!

People are talking about increasing the block rewards for witnesses to encourage more active/productive witnesses: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,23702.0.html

Surely degrading votes over say 4-6 months would encourage witnesses to continuously campaign for their positions and open the door for new witnesses to potentially gain power?

Getting witnesses to add price feeds for the GRIDCOIN MPA was like pulling teeth  - witnesses should be far more active & inactivity should have consequences, even if their witness node is healthy.

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12920
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
I do think a UIA fits more in Gridcoin's situation, perhaps with a special owner/committee like the STEALTH asset (check https://cryptofresh.com/u/stealth-mgmt , the owner is a multi-sig account, automatically controlled by top 5 holders)
I was hoping that we can have a hard fork to make this particular sub-feature of STEALTH be used for any asset .. that would be super super cool!!!

yes, i chose to hide the name of the asset too. i assume that's what u mean.
a bitshares stealth transaction = "unknown" sent n "unknown" to "unknown".
first mentioned here: https://twitter.com/kenCode_de/status/796350090856267776
Thats not what we mean.
we mean that an asset's issuer is defined as a multisig group of the X biggest shareholders

Offline kenCode

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2283
    • View Profile
    • Agorise
I do think a UIA fits more in Gridcoin's situation, perhaps with a special owner/committee like the STEALTH asset (check https://cryptofresh.com/u/stealth-mgmt , the owner is a multi-sig account, automatically controlled by top 5 holders)
I was hoping that we can have a hard fork to make this particular sub-feature of STEALTH be used for any asset .. that would be super super cool!!!

yes, i chose to hide the name of the asset too. i assume that's what u mean.
a bitshares stealth transaction = "unknown" sent n "unknown" to "unknown".
first mentioned here: https://twitter.com/kenCode_de/status/796350090856267776
kenCode - Decentraliser @ Agorise
Matrix/Keybase/Hive/Commun/Github: @Agorise
www.PalmPay.chat

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12920
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
I do think a UIA fits more in Gridcoin's situation, perhaps with a special owner/committee like the STEALTH asset (check https://cryptofresh.com/u/stealth-mgmt , the owner is a multi-sig account, automatically controlled by top 5 holders)
I was hoping that we can have a hard fork to make this particular sub-feature of STEALTH be used for any asset .. that would be super super cool!!!

Offline abit

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4572
    • View Profile
    • Abit's Hive Blog
  • BitShares: abit
  • GitHub: abitmore
Quick update regarding the 'GRIDCOIN' MPA - The Gridcoin price fluctuated, triggered a black swan state and the asset has been stuck in said state ever since: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,22733.msg299091.html#msg299091

It has however opened the door to new developments by PC regarding MPA resiliency to black swan events. Once these new changes are in effect, the Gridcoin community will reactivate the market pegged asset, requiring more witnesses to produce the price feed.

Prior to the black swan event we only had 2 or 3 witnesses out of 25 (27?), whilst changing the witness count may be a dangerous idea the concept of vote weight degradation over time for witnesses and committee members is still sound.

What does everyone think?
I do think a UIA fits more in Gridcoin's situation, perhaps with a special owner/committee like the STEALTH asset (check https://cryptofresh.com/u/stealth-mgmt , the owner is a multi-sig account, automatically controlled by top 5 holders)
« Last Edit: November 24, 2016, 11:55:33 pm by abit »
BitShares committee member: abit
BitShares witness: in.abit

Offline R

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 841
    • View Profile
Quick update regarding the 'GRIDCOIN' MPA - The Gridcoin price fluctuated, triggered a black swan state and the asset has been stuck in said state ever since: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,22733.msg299091.html#msg299091

It has however opened the door to new developments by PC regarding MPA resiliency to black swan events. Once these new changes are in effect, the Gridcoin community will reactivate the market pegged asset, requiring more witnesses to produce the price feed.

Prior to the black swan event we only had 2 or 3 witnesses out of 25 (27?), whilst changing the witness count may be a dangerous idea the concept of vote weight degradation over time for witnesses and committee members is still sound.

What does everyone think?