Fee for delegates making voteable dilution proposals: How high should it be?

[fluxer555]

I think what might happen is that the DAC will become self-sustaining, where we would most likely vote out all high-pay delegates, and the rate at which fees are burned outpaces the rate of pay inflation.

[matt608]

Hug? Since when are delegates supposed to pay a fee besides registration fee, which is pretty tiny:

"delegate_reg_fee": "14.09802 BTSX",

Sorry, I thought that's what this thread was discussing? I must have misunderstood :)

I've realised that I've made the error here of thinking that 'technical delegates' and  'business delegates' (what I've been calling 'dilution requests') will be separated.  In the linked thread https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9452.90 this is discussed at length.  It doesn't look like a decision was reached, has that decision been made?  There will still just be 1 type of delegate and paid 100% by dilution as proposed in BM's opening post in that thread, or is it still up for discussion?

Yea I don't think that was ever changed, so there will only be one type of delegate pay: by dilution. Transaction fees will be burnt 100%. The delegate types are simply describing their function, not their pay form.

As for the fees, the original proposal was 100 blocks worth I believe, which BM quickly upped to 7 days after feedback from Arhag and others including myself.

So there will never come a time when transaction fees directly pay for delegates?  I was under the impression the dilution was temporary, it was just going to be there for however long it took to  to 'bootstrap' the DAC up to a level of profitability to be able to pay delegates entirely by transaction fees.  But then with 100% burning of transaction fees, eventually that burn rate could outpace the dilution rate, so overall deflation could eventually occur.

[fluxer555]

If my math is correct, that's 29,940.5941 BTS.

((7days * 24hours * 60minutes * 6rounds) / 101delegates) * 50BTS

[monsterer]

As for the fees, the original proposal was 100 blocks worth I believe, which BM quickly upped to 7 days after feedback from Arhag and others including myself.

How much is that in total?

[svk]

Hug? Since when are delegates supposed to pay a fee besides registration fee, which is pretty tiny:

"delegate_reg_fee": "14.09802 BTSX",

Sorry, I thought that's what this thread was discussing? I must have misunderstood :)

I've realised that I've made the error here of thinking that 'technical delegates' and  'business delegates' (what I've been calling 'dilution requests') will be separated.  In the linked thread https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9452.90 this is discussed at length.  It doesn't look like a decision was reached, has that decision been made?  There will still just be 1 type of delegate and paid 100% by dilution as proposed in BM's opening post in that thread, or is it still up for discussion?

Yea I don't think that was ever changed, so there will only be one type of delegate pay: by dilution. Transaction fees will be burnt 100%. The delegate types are simply describing their function, not their pay form.

As for the fees, the original proposal was 100 blocks worth I believe, which BM quickly upped to 7 days after feedback from Arhag and others including myself.

[xeroc]

take a look at this:
http://digitalgaia.io/backbone.html

[matt608]

Hug? Since when are delegates supposed to pay a fee besides registration fee, which is pretty tiny:

"delegate_reg_fee": "14.09802 BTSX",

Sorry, I thought that's what this thread was discussing? I must have misunderstood :)

I've realised that I've made the error here of thinking that 'technical delegates' and  'business delegates' (what I've been calling 'dilution requests') will be separated.  In the linked thread https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9452.90 this is discussed at length.  It doesn't look like a decision was reached, has that decision been made?  There will still just be 1 type of delegate and paid 100% by dilution as proposed in BM's opening post in that thread, or is it still up for discussion?

I would be in favour of separating the roles... unless there's another big thread on this I should read?

[svk]

so DDOSing is not an issue IMHO

maybe campaign trash talk bashing .. but not DDOS

Here is one such exploit:

Enumerate all nodes on the network by following connections from the client. Delegates have to be online to produce blocks, so you'll be able to gather their IP addresses along with everyone elses.

Then, simply run through that list, DDOS bursting at each IP address and watch every single delegate for stats dropping. You will be able to find a map from IP to delegate with quite a high probability with enough DDOS probes.

edit: might cost a lot if you don't own a botnet, but the risk is there.

This is a little off-topic but I'm very interested in the DDOS attack vector and what we might do to prevent it.

I know one method proposed by Emski I think would be to have your delegate connect only to nodes controlled by yourself, and disable peer advertising on those nodes. That seems to me like it could work, but it would also be very expensive.

Another option in the client is to refuse incoming connections, would this thwart a DDOS attack? Unfortunately this option doesn't seem very stable, at least every time I've tried I ended up going to 0 connections and losing sync with the network.

[Method-X]

so DDOSing is not an issue IMHO

maybe campaign trash talk bashing .. but not DDOS

Here is one such exploit:

Enumerate all nodes on the network by following connections from the client. Delegates have to be online to produce blocks, so you'll be able to gather their IP addresses along with everyone elses.

Then, simply run through that list, DDOS bursting at each IP address and watch every single delegate for stats dropping. You will be able to find a map from IP to delegate with quite a high probability with enough DDOS probes.

edit: might cost a lot if you don't own a botnet, but the risk is there.

So how do we prevent DDOSing? Arent Bitcoins mining pools subject to the same thing?

[monsterer]

so DDOSing is not an issue IMHO

maybe campaign trash talk bashing .. but not DDOS

Here is one such exploit:

Enumerate all nodes on the network by following connections from the client. Delegates have to be online to produce blocks, so you'll be able to gather their IP addresses along with everyone elses.

Then, simply run through that list, DDOS bursting at each IP address and watch every single delegate for stats dropping. You will be able to find a map from IP to delegate with quite a high probability with enough DDOS probes.

edit: might cost a lot if you don't own a botnet, but the risk is there.

[xeroc]

Or, is getting DDOSed out of existance by other delegate candidates with something to gain.

DDOSing a delegate is not so easy because you can hide it's IP where every you want .. either in a VPN to the seed nodes or any other trusted nodes .. or you put all of it into tor (if latency allows it)

so DDOSing is not an issue IMHO

maybe campaign trash talk bashing .. but not DDOS

[monsterer]

A delegate unable to stay in for 2 weeks is still campaigning or isn't serious about getting and keeping the job.

Or, is getting DDOSed out of existance by other delegate candidates with something to gain.

[bytemaster]

A delegate unable to stay in for 2 weeks is still campaigning or isn't serious about getting and keeping the job. 

[monsterer]

though I don't see why we should have such a high fee ... would give those couple thousand delegates already registered a HUGE advantage .. not sure if I would like that to happen

I think existing delegates have to re-register to apply for greater than 3% pay rate anyway?

Even so, it could make for a risky proposition for a potential new delegate.

edit: IMO this up front payment should be returnable in the event the delegate gets voted out before 100 blocks.

[xeroc]

Sorry, I thought that's what this thread was discussing? I must have misunderstood :)

You are right... I was wrong .. was confused by the quote .. sorry ..

You have a valid point!
registering an expensive delegate and than not being voted in to achieve a ROI could happen that way ..
though I don't see why we should have such a high fee ... would give those couple thousand delegates already registered a HUGE advantage .. not sure if I would like that to happen