Author [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] Topic: The Case for Delegates as Multi-Person Cooperatives  (Read 1815 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline fuzzy

The Case for Delegates as Multi-Person Cooperatives
« on: October 30, 2014, 11:31:27 AM »

Some on these forums "believe" it would be more transparent and "honest" to have a single person being funded by each delegate. 

This is absolutely terrible if you want to minimize collusion among delegates and large shareholders.  Let's give a simple example of why this is a bad idea. 

Let's say "someone" (let's call him Rune) shows up one day making thousands of posts an hour about how our community has been gifted with the most incredible technology of all time.  Let's now say he has a lot of support by a forum veteran who somehow states that he doesn't know him (even though Rune says he brought him here). 

Now lets just say for a moment that this hypothetical guy goes into the Mumble server and tells the Community Event Organizer (CEO)(Not Community Manager) that he is going to be the "Most Powerful Person in Bitshares".  Let's also say that he tells the CEO that he needs to quit his day job and work full time, run a delegate and get it into power.  Then let's say he asks this CEO to speak privately with him after a Mumble Hangout...where he tells the "CEO" of his plans to advocate complete transparency of funds for everyone's accounts under the pretext of honesty and transparency (so he can identify the largest account holders).  Now let's imagine this person saying "I know you aren't going to like this fuzz, but we need to get a group of people in charge of the largest BitShares accounts and form a power block" with them.  We will all have to have secret meetings....

Secret...meetings....  but I digress...

Then Let's imagine this happens.  This "hypothetical guy", who "hypothetically" says he was "brought here" by Methodx, tells me to quit my job, makes a post on the forums saying I need to be the Community Manager, making 10-15k PER MONTH.  Let's say hypothetically, my conscience is overruled by PURE GREED, and his efforts gain my support.  I fight the battle I fought in my heart and mind over the past week and make the WRONG decision to really join forces and dance with the devil (a battle rarely won).  I support his plan to have one person per delegate...and that is just the beginning.

Well now we start having our "secret meetings" and I serve as the public face to this secret group...helping them ascertain which delegates are the ones they want in power--without them ever having to publically say a word.  They use greed to control delegates and when one of them decides to go against the will of this "secret group", they are voted out of power.  If they try to come onto the Mumble Server, they find that the CEO followed Rune's advice and made it so ALL QUESTIONS MUST GO THROUGH HIM--as opposed to the currently structured Open Forum--and that person's questions/concerns fall on def ears (remember, I am now "hypothetically" on the side of my secret group of friends).  So that person tries to post things to the forums to inform others of potential collusion...but the "Community Manager" and other insiders attack them.  Or worse....the community Manager deletes all posts and bans him, citing a false narrative. 

ALWAYS remember----It is FAR easier to control that one-person-owned-delegate because there are no witnesses...and the secret power block has one of the most trusted members of the community (the "CEO") in their pocket.

However, if each delegate has multiple participants, it is FAR more difficult to get all of them to secretly collude.  It is also FAR more difficult a task for the "Community Manager" to control them. In case the quotation marks around every instance of the word "hypothetical" failed to denote my sarcasm...This was NOT a hypothetical situation--it actually happened.   

I have said it once in this thread:  https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10344.msg141609#msg141609 

I am sorry Ghensto.  I let you down.  I am not an infiltrator...I am a person with an honest heart who is terrified at what humanity is capable of when "profit" is on the line.  I have attempted to do as you said, even sent emails to both of these hypothetical figures telling them they could be on the Beyond Bitcoin Delegate slate so I could gain more money--to use as a tool to fight these people...but I can't do it.  I have to do what is in my heart...and that is what I have always done, be it popular or unpopular. 

Let the f'ing "politics" begin.   :(

« Last Edit: October 30, 2014, 08:58:34 PM by fuzzy »
WhaleShares==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits and WhaleShares = Love :D

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile
Re: The Case for Delegates as Multi-Person Cooperatives
« Reply #1 on: October 30, 2014, 11:59:03 AM »


LOL.  I have little to add, but I just want to make the point that I called out Rune's intentions before I had any knowledge of what Fuz is talking about by his posts on this site alone.

I doubt Methodx has anything to do with Rune, but it is possible. 

I speak for myself and only myself.

Offline fuzzy

Re: The Case for Delegates as Multi-Person Cooperatives
« Reply #2 on: October 30, 2014, 12:01:56 PM »
He advocates for him, so I await Method's explanation--but I am not going to say I trust him anymore.
WhaleShares==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits and WhaleShares = Love :D

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile
Re: The Case for Delegates as Multi-Person Cooperatives
« Reply #3 on: October 30, 2014, 12:10:16 PM »

People passionate about btsx are going to like other people passionate about btsx.  Rune put out a lot of positive talk.  Lots of people, especially young people, or technical people have little experience with these types will just take it at face value.  Methodx has put a lot of effort to come up with ideas and put little effort trying to befriend everyone.  Not trusting him is fine, but I would not just throw his name out there.  Methodx never claimed he knew Rune or vouched for him, he just said he liked the guy. (or something like that)  Lots of people like Rune, it is just that Rune didn't name drop them... so it isn't fair to methodx. 
I speak for myself and only myself.

Offline fuzzy

Re: The Case for Delegates as Multi-Person Cooperatives
« Reply #4 on: October 30, 2014, 12:19:48 PM »

People passionate about btsx are going to like other people passionate about btsx.  Rune put out a lot of positive talk.  Lots of people, especially young people, or technical people have little experience with these types will just take it at face value.  Methodx has put a lot of effort to come up with ideas and put little effort trying to befriend everyone.  Not trusting him is fine, but I would not just throw his name out there.  Methodx never claimed he knew Rune or vouched for him, he just said he liked the guy. (or something like that)  Lots of people like Rune, it is just that Rune didn't name drop them... so it isn't fair to methodx.

It is what it is...I have no intentions of excluding him from this little shindig.  He seemed pretty interested in joining Rune's little "private" discussion...though he had no mic and did (to his defense) seem like he was fiddling with that the entire discussion and likely could have missed Rune's attempt to appeal to my greed.  I am concerned because the best scammers are those who put themselves in positions of trust, otherwise how would they ever be effective?

You very well could be right.  But if someone came on here spouting out and coming up with these plans, saying I brought them here...I would be openly stating otherwise.  Has he?  If so, please accept my apologies Method.  I would love to believe otherwise...trust me.
« Last Edit: October 30, 2014, 12:24:22 PM by fuzzy »
WhaleShares==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits and WhaleShares = Love :D

Offline CLains

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2610
    • View Profile
  • BTS: clains
Re: The Case for Delegates as Multi-Person Cooperatives
« Reply #5 on: October 30, 2014, 12:51:48 PM »
Whatever the merits of this pitch fork session, paranoia (fuzz), cynicism (gamey) or hostility (tonyk) does have its place in ensuring the survival of this ecosystem, as a lot of things can go wrong "politically." Hopefully Rune and others will not view this as a personal attack, but rather as an immune system reaction that helps to protect the system. I would add that the community is in a sensitive period as market cap has fallen from 65 to 40 million in 30 days, and all hope rests with forces that to most of us remain distant and opaque.
Vote for BTS-2 witness: spectral (1.6.30)

Follow https://steemit.com/@clains

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12324
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BTS: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
Re: The Case for Delegates as Multi-Person Cooperatives
« Reply #6 on: October 30, 2014, 01:06:13 PM »
Whatever the merits of this pitch fork session, paranoia (fuzz), cynicism (gamey) or hostility (tonyk) does have its place in ensuring the survival of this ecosystem, as a lot of things can go wrong "politically." Hopefully Rune and others will not view this as a personal attack, but rather as an immune system reaction that helps to protect the system. I would add that the community is in a sensitive period as market cap has fallen from 65 to 40 million in 30 days, and all hope rests with forces that to most of us remain distant and opaque.
+5%

Maybe I made my personal position no clear yet .. but I am all for having a group of people behind a SINGLE delegate .. What I am against is a set of delegates that are conspiring in a secret group
Give BitShares a try! Use the http://testnet.bitshares.eu provided by http://bitshares.eu powered by ChainSquad GmbH

Offline fuzzy

Re: The Case for Delegates as Multi-Person Cooperatives
« Reply #7 on: October 30, 2014, 01:10:25 PM »
Whatever the merits of this pitch fork session, paranoia (fuzz), cynicism (gamey) or hostility (tonyk) does have its place in ensuring the survival of this ecosystem, as a lot of things can go wrong "politically." Hopefully Rune and others will not view this as a personal attack, but rather as an immune system reaction that helps to protect the system. I would add that the community is in a sensitive period as market cap has fallen from 65 to 40 million in 30 days, and all hope rests with forces that to most of us remain distant and opaque.

CLains.  Though I respect your intentions I would do my best if I were you to stop labeling the people who have worked side by side with you for the past year with these ridiculous labels.

It is dismissive and borderline disrespectful of those with  genuine concerns and belies a fundamental naivety.  Not all people have good intentions.  Would it be rational for me to call you paranoid and stick up for someone after they made a blatant attempt to do something similar to you? 

How would you take it if someone approached you in such a way?  Would you jump on the opportunity and say "oh this guy must be legit...advocating transparency and secret power blocks at the same time is is definitely congruent with trustworthy behavior"

I am going to gently tell you to sit back and read before calling us names and defending him.  You risk a great deal for EVERYONE by trying to a fault to be politically correct.
« Last Edit: October 30, 2014, 01:12:30 PM by fuzzy »
WhaleShares==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits and WhaleShares = Love :D

Offline fuzzy

Re: The Case for Delegates as Multi-Person Cooperatives
« Reply #8 on: October 30, 2014, 01:18:12 PM »
Whatever the merits of this pitch fork session, paranoia (fuzz), cynicism (gamey) or hostility (tonyk) does have its place in ensuring the survival of this ecosystem, as a lot of things can go wrong "politically." Hopefully Rune and others will not view this as a personal attack, but rather as an immune system reaction that helps to protect the system. I would add that the community is in a sensitive period as market cap has fallen from 65 to 40 million in 30 days, and all hope rests with forces that to most of us remain distant and opaque.
+5%

Maybe I made my personal position no clear yet .. but I am all for having a group of people behind a SINGLE delegate .. What I am against is a set of delegates that are conspiring in a secret group

Xeroc.  I never intended to come across as frustrared with you (or you either, C).  I know for a fact, though, you were there for the second time I met with him (after the last hangout).  I am simply saying you guys sometimes confuse niceness and charm with trustworthiness.  The bigger this gets, the more eloquent will be the players....

This is a rule, not an exception.  Those who do not see it are putting eveyone at risk by making dissent of such tactics "unpopular". 

Dan was right when he pondered whether bitcoin had become the antithesis of what it was meant to be.  This is not a tribal diatribe but a statement born of fact...
WhaleShares==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits and WhaleShares = Love :D

Offline GaltReport

Re: The Case for Delegates as Multi-Person Cooperatives
« Reply #9 on: October 30, 2014, 01:18:20 PM »
Wow, so much drama.  Maybe people need to take  a step back and try to have an "arms length relationship" with Bitshares and other community members.

http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/arm-s-length-relationship

More matter of fact, business-like, less personal.

Offline fuzzy

Re: The Case for Delegates as Multi-Person Cooperatives
« Reply #10 on: October 30, 2014, 01:22:51 PM »
Drama?  Or someones genuine concern over someone telling him to quit his job, join a secret alliance of big stake holders and close the open forum he built to protect this community?

Call it what you wish, it still doesnt change facts...

Of course if you guys would have preferred I join this alliance or keep quiet while Rune continues to make attempts to gain trust in the community while openly telling me of his intentions...then so be it. 

Also as a note to the arms length relationships...this his not how you build a viral network effect.  It requires something deeper.
« Last Edit: October 30, 2014, 01:25:05 PM by fuzzy »
WhaleShares==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits and WhaleShares = Love :D

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12324
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BTS: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
Re: The Case for Delegates as Multi-Person Cooperatives
« Reply #11 on: October 30, 2014, 01:30:00 PM »
Xeroc.  I never intended to come across as frustrared with you (or you either, C).  I know for a fact, though, you were there for the second time I met with him (after the last hangout). I am simply saying you guys sometimes confuse niceness and charm with trustworthiness.  The bigger this gets, the more eloquent will be the players....

This is a rule, not an exception.  Those who do not see it are putting everyone at risk by making dissent of such tactics "unpopular". 
You are probably right about this .. Most of the time I am to naive about most things ..
And I thank you (really) for reminding me about it ...

It is pretty difficult to read between the lines and guess about the intentions someone might have .. or might not ..
I agree with you that our friend seems to be pretty inconsistent about openness, trust, and secrecy .. But I not necessarily see his intension to harm the community or the project ... No needs to be trusted .. not me, nor Rune, nor fuzz .. maybe BM to not mess with the code/blockchain .. but that's about it ..
There's no need for trust!

However, there is the need for open discussions about things that are (mildly spoken) "odd". And I thank you, fuzz, for being the guy to have the courage to take that step ..
The task of the community, as I see it, is to give the stakeholders hints and information about what to consider when voting (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10735.0)

My personal conclusion from this is:
Not be shortsighted and approve delegates on first sight because they seem nice
(be ensured that was not the case before and will not be the case after this discussion)
Give BitShares a try! Use the http://testnet.bitshares.eu provided by http://bitshares.eu powered by ChainSquad GmbH

Offline GaltReport

Re: The Case for Delegates as Multi-Person Cooperatives
« Reply #12 on: October 30, 2014, 01:34:03 PM »
Drama?  Or someones genuine concern over someone telling him to quit his job, join a secret alliance of big stake holders and close the open forum he built to protect this community?

Call it what you wish, it still doesnt change facts...

Of course if you guys would have preferred I join this alliance or keep quiet while Rune continues to make attempts to gain trust in the community while openly telling me of his intentions...then so be it. 

Also as a note to the arms length relationships...this his not how you build a viral network effect.  It requires something deeper.

By Drama I mean all that you related, not that you are making things needlessly dramatic. :)

By and large though it just reinforces in me my non-trust of virtually everyone. I try not to base relationships on high-levels of trust.  I really only have different levels of non-trust, be it my own family or the pet dog.  In fact, anytime some asks me to trust them, I immediately put up my guard because they seem to want me to lower it...for some reason. 

By arms length I just mean, matter of fact...based on facts and knowledge of each persons actions and interests.  "Spock like".  Not based on "trust".  As a result, I try to avoid asking anyone to trust me.

Edit: BTW, BM has earned the 2nd highest level of non-trust that I have.  ;)  (This is positive on my scale)
« Last Edit: October 30, 2014, 01:57:54 PM by GaltReport »

Offline Agent86

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 471
  • BTSX: agent86
    • View Profile
Re: The Case for Delegates as Multi-Person Cooperatives
« Reply #13 on: October 30, 2014, 01:43:21 PM »
Whatever the merits of this pitch fork session, paranoia (fuzz), cynicism (gamey) or hostility (tonyk) does have its place in ensuring the survival of this ecosystem, as a lot of things can go wrong "politically." Hopefully Rune and others will not view this as a personal attack, but rather as an immune system reaction that helps to protect the system. I would add that the community is in a sensitive period as market cap has fallen from 65 to 40 million in 30 days, and all hope rests with forces that to most of us remain distant and opaque.
I also think we should be careful about judging people's intent too quickly. Sometimes there can be misunderstandings or disagreements about ideas that seem to turn personal.

I've never talked to Rune and haven't followed all his posts but his posts didn't jump out as malicious to me.  That being said, I can understand others may have experiences & info I don't so it is fine to share.
« Last Edit: October 30, 2014, 01:46:26 PM by Agent86 »

Offline fuzzy

Re: The Case for Delegates as Multi-Person Cooperatives
« Reply #14 on: October 30, 2014, 01:49:06 PM »
Drama?  Or someones genuine concern over someone telling him to quit his job, join a secret alliance of big stake holders and close the open forum he built to protect this community?

Call it what you wish, it still doesnt change facts...

Of course if you guys would have preferred I join this alliance or keep quiet while Rune continues to make attempts to gain trust in the community while openly telling me of his intentions...then so be it. 

Also as a note to the arms length relationships...this his not how you build a viral network effect.  It requires something deeper.

By Drama I mean all that you related, not that you are making things needlessly dramatic. :)

By and large though it just reinforces in me my non-trust of virtually everyone. I try not to base relationships on high-levels of trust.  I really only have different levels of non-trust, be it my own family or the pet dog.  In fact, anytime some asks me to trust them, I immediately put up my guard because they seem to want me to lower it...for some reason. 

By arms length I just mean, matter of fact...based on facts and knowledge of each persons actions and interests.  Not based on "trust".  As a result, I try to avoid asking anyone to trust me.

Quote
By and large though it just reinforces in me my non-trust of virtually everyone.
  ...thank you for making me laugh Galt.  People can be trusted, but we have to make them prove themselves.  And by proving themselves...I do not mean pouring honey in our ears.

What little power that I have in this community was given by ALL of you--trusting me.  I have no intention of ever letting that trust fail you or anyone else who has paid their dues and stands here today as one of the founding members of this Decentralized Autonomous Community (thank you for that post btw, BM--you invoked the spirit George Washington, hell..yeh.).  The Mumble will continue to be Open Forum.  However, I am seriously considering giving "power" of Beyond Bitcoin's forum moderation to someone else I trust (more on that at another time).  My work helping organize community discussions, however, will continue because I am certain that there needs to be a historical record of the events that take place here. 

Think Bigger Pinky.  This is not just crypto"currency"---it is a movement. THIS IS GALTS GULCH!
People will do well to remind themselves the factors that brought them here and the corruption that created such a huge vaccuum that so many flocked to crypto in the first place.  We have a chance to set the world right.  Let's not let virtual tokens get in the way of what really matters...our "slightly less than arms-length" relationships :P 
« Last Edit: October 30, 2014, 01:51:03 PM by fuzzy »
WhaleShares==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits and WhaleShares = Love :D

 

Google+