I feel like if the community has to enforce one rule, it should be this one. If we never allow anyone the chance to build a centralized card house of trust, money or whatever - then we can be almost 100% that we will NEVER experience a bitcoinica or mtgox moment.
3 people would not be an issue. But it would make multi-delegates acceptable and encourage centralized trust/power/payment structures. We would eventually see 5 man, 10 man, 100 man delegates, or more. If we instead allow the number of delegates to grow, we can have all the trust/power/payment structures transparently on the blockchain, and the organizational efficiency of the team can continue completely unhindered, but would also allow for more autonomous, yet transparent and overseen, innovation and development by individual devs.
I don't get why this is the one rule is so important.
As Bytemaster pointed out, anyone can fake being an individual person and sub-contract people out. So this rule is pointless in some regard and only punishes the honest !
I still don't understand. You say trust-trust-trust! Yet you want this extreme level of transparency for what is a crypto world that wants little third-party involvement and oversight. The reason you have transparency is because you don't trust ! Why else have such extreme transparency ? So are we for trust or not 
What is your stance on making identities public ?
Why not just measure on level of value done vs amount paid. That is how you measure value.
I absolutely believe it should be up to the individual to decide whether to be anonymous or not. The advantage of forcing the one delegate = one human rule is that anyone looking to infiltrate us would probably break that rule. While it is not trivial to detect people breaking the rule, it is still easier to look for people breaking it, than people who are simply harboring dishonest intentions that might "go off" later when they are deeper into the trust structure.
It is hard to fake real human behaviour and social interaction. I imagine scammers, criminals or intelligence agents will underestimate this difficulty because they are predominantly sociopaths.
I agree that no matter who gets the job it should be one person=one delegate. This also ensures that if it is a team of people and one person's actions will not get the entire team voted out.
Not everyone who has value will want to run their own delegate or will they have the technical skills. It is just a flawed way of looking at things. People can subcontract work out all the time. Only honest people will be punished by this "rule".
It is flawed because you are trusting people to be honest about something, when we should just look at the result created.
It would be up to the team to get rid of the bad actor, and if the team had enough value otherwise they could likely be reelected in. This rule is an unenforceable arbitrary rule that just hurts the ability to hire non-technical people in roles they are good at.
By your logic you want to leave it up to the team to get rid of a bad apple. By mine it should be up to the community to pick out the bad apple.
I actually sub contract out my delegate(don't worry I am not in the top 101
). I do not have the technical skill to run a delegate myself. I think I a can help if different ways but as rune has pointed out I believe it will be made much easier to run a delegate in the future.
xeroc also makes a valid argument that the equipment required (if that level is achieved) will put running a delegate out of reach of the daily user.
I am trying to understand your side but what do we have to gain by not making a rule like this? Lets try to forget atm the rule would be mostly un-enforceable.
Topic: The community needs a professional community management team. (Read 10074 times)
