Author Topic: Paid Workers Proposal for Review  (Read 43843 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline BTSdac

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1219
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: K1

I'm saying if you want to be a witness then set up a account and campaign for votes. If you want to be a worker then send in proposals and campaign for votes.  I'm saying a vote for for you be a witness should not be included in the the vote for you to worker if you are using the same account. The cleanest way to avoid that is make it two separate accounts.

They would be voted separately.
Hi BM I have to question ,
1.there is no encourage for people to vote more ,
2. there is no vote term vote is permanent,  it make delegate would very positive while vote campaign, but after that motive is weak by time . I don`t know if you is be aware of this
« Last Edit: May 20, 2015, 06:49:52 pm by BTSdac »
github.com :pureland
BTS2.0 API :ws://139.196.37.179:8091
BTS2.0 API 数据源ws://139.196.37.179:8091

Offline bytemaster


I'm saying if you want to be a witness then set up a account and campaign for votes. If you want to be a worker then send in proposals and campaign for votes.  I'm saying a vote for for you be a witness should not be included in the the vote for you to worker if you are using the same account. The cleanest way to avoid that is make it two separate accounts.

They would be voted separately.
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline Pheonike


I'm saying if you want to be a witness then set up a account and campaign for votes. If you want to be a worker then send in proposals and campaign for votes.  I'm saying a vote for for you be a witness should not be included in the the vote for you to worker if you are using the same account. The cleanest way to avoid that is make it two separate accounts.

Offline BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode


Will there be an exclusion that does not allow worker/witness/delegates to be from the same account/address?  If someone is going to fill more than one of those roles simultaneously there should be clear separation on the chain as well.

I can understand worker and witness being the same person. They'd be like the backbone delegates we have now. However I can understand why being a delegate and either of the two other roles at the same time would be a conflict of interest.

It's going to be interesting to see how the community chooses to handle that. Perhaps it's better to allow all proposals to be brought forward and allow all of it be openly considered. Otherwise I it could lead to a culture of sock-puppets and arms-length affiliated operators within the ecosystem. At the end of the day, even if they are in all spaces, they are still just one of many who can provide check and balance as well.

Perhaps in situations like that then a multi-sig is standard.. or maybe the multi-sig being the standard for all then conflict becomes moot.

I think Pheonike regarding separate accounts is good at least to make the accounting easier for everyone to follow. I don't know though in regards to splitting their voting power.. because then their stake will be halfed or thirded if I am understanding what you are suggesting correctly.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
www.Peerplays.com | Decentralized Gaming Built with Graphene - Now with BookiePro and Sweeps!
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Offline Pheonike


Im saying the account/address used for worker/witness/delegate should not be able to voted into more than one of those roles simultaneously. If someone wants to be a worker and witness then those should be two different accounts and campaigned for separately. They real life person is a separate issue.

Offline Riverhead


Will there be an exclusion that does not allow worker/witness/delegates to be from the same account/address?  If someone is going to fill more than one of those roles simultaneously there should be clear separation on the chain as well.

I can understand worker and witness being the same person. They'd be like the backbone delegates we have now. However I can understand why being a delegate and either of the two other roles at the same time would be a conflict of interest.

Offline Pheonike


Will there be an exclusion that does not allow worker/witness/delegates to be from the same account/address?  If someone is going to fill more than one of those roles simultaneously there should be clear separation on the chain as well.

Offline Riverhead


Starting to get my head around the new structure. I really really like it. A question, out of many to come I'm sure, is why does the genesis account need money? Is the fee to change a blockchain parameter greater than a transaction fee?

If this is answered elsewhere a simple RTFM will do :).

Offline bytemaster

Lucky for you I have been working on just such a paper... here is a preview of the motivation for this:

Quote
Under DPOS 1.0 the stakeholders would select 101 delegates by approval voting.  These delegates would take turns producing blocks every 10 seconds. Each delegate would get to set their own pay rate as a percent of the maximum.  Decisions about which fees to charge and hard-forks to adopt rested in the hands of delegates which acted individually.

This system worked reasonably well but over time some serious issues became apparent. Some of these issues include:

Requiring stakeholders to select 101 delegates may be too much leading to most stakeholders voting for less than 101 or not carefully vetting the delegates they chose.
Forcing all “employees” to run servers to get paid significantly complicated the hiring of people without those skills.
There was no way to come to a consensus on what the fee structure should be.
With a total budget of $50,000 per month of new issuance, each individual delegate had a maximum budget of $500 per month which is not enough to get someone’s full time attention.   It was politically unpopular to give one individual multiple delegate positions for fear of centralization.
Delegates have too much control in a single position that opens them up to unnecessary legal liability.

DPOS 2.0 Overview

Under DPOS 2.0 the roles of delegates have been divided into 3 categories:

Witness - produces blocks and is paid a percentage of transaction fees.
Worker - is paid a fixed number of tokens per day to perform a task
Delegate - co-signer on a dynamic multi-sig account with permissions to change blockchain parameters.

Each of these roles is filled by approval voting.  The number of Witnesses and Delegates is directly voted upon by the stakeholders.    Each stakeholder must vote for at least as many Witnesses and Delegates as they believe the system should have.   The number of witnesses/delegates is defined such that at least 50% of voting shareholders believe there is sufficient decentralization.  The number of workers is determined by how many workers the available daily budget will cover when paid out to workers from most approved to least approved.



Delegates


The delegates have multi-sig control over a special account dubbed the “genesis account”.  This multi-sig account can do anything any other account can do with a 2 week delay.  If enough delegates are voted out within two weeks of jointly approving a transaction then the transaction will fail to go through.   

The “genesis account” has the unique privilege of changing critical parameters such as: Block Interval, Block Size, Witness Pay Rate, Burn Rate, and even the review period for their own transactions.   

Delegates are not paid positions and are therefore honorary and held by individuals who have a vested interest negotiating changes to the network parameters. 

Legally the delegates have no direct power other than to propose changes for the stakeholders to reject.   This means delegate positions are safe from regulation and power truly rests in the hands of the stakeholders.   

Unlike DPOS 1.0 where each delegate operates independently, under DPOS 2.0 delegates are forced to reach consensus directly before any change can be proposed. 


I like the separation of powers and particularly the idea of the genesis account, with its delayed/rejectable txs.. very cool.
Do you envision the genesis account containing funds and making transfers?
Can anyone transfer funds to this account without approval?

Yes and Yes.   
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline roadscape

Lucky for you I have been working on just such a paper... here is a preview of the motivation for this:

Quote
Under DPOS 1.0 the stakeholders would select 101 delegates by approval voting.  These delegates would take turns producing blocks every 10 seconds. Each delegate would get to set their own pay rate as a percent of the maximum.  Decisions about which fees to charge and hard-forks to adopt rested in the hands of delegates which acted individually.

This system worked reasonably well but over time some serious issues became apparent. Some of these issues include:

Requiring stakeholders to select 101 delegates may be too much leading to most stakeholders voting for less than 101 or not carefully vetting the delegates they chose.
Forcing all “employees” to run servers to get paid significantly complicated the hiring of people without those skills.
There was no way to come to a consensus on what the fee structure should be.
With a total budget of $50,000 per month of new issuance, each individual delegate had a maximum budget of $500 per month which is not enough to get someone’s full time attention.   It was politically unpopular to give one individual multiple delegate positions for fear of centralization.
Delegates have too much control in a single position that opens them up to unnecessary legal liability.

DPOS 2.0 Overview

Under DPOS 2.0 the roles of delegates have been divided into 3 categories:

Witness - produces blocks and is paid a percentage of transaction fees.
Worker - is paid a fixed number of tokens per day to perform a task
Delegate - co-signer on a dynamic multi-sig account with permissions to change blockchain parameters.

Each of these roles is filled by approval voting.  The number of Witnesses and Delegates is directly voted upon by the stakeholders.    Each stakeholder must vote for at least as many Witnesses and Delegates as they believe the system should have.   The number of witnesses/delegates is defined such that at least 50% of voting shareholders believe there is sufficient decentralization.  The number of workers is determined by how many workers the available daily budget will cover when paid out to workers from most approved to least approved.



Delegates


The delegates have multi-sig control over a special account dubbed the “genesis account”.  This multi-sig account can do anything any other account can do with a 2 week delay.  If enough delegates are voted out within two weeks of jointly approving a transaction then the transaction will fail to go through.   

The “genesis account” has the unique privilege of changing critical parameters such as: Block Interval, Block Size, Witness Pay Rate, Burn Rate, and even the review period for their own transactions.   

Delegates are not paid positions and are therefore honorary and held by individuals who have a vested interest negotiating changes to the network parameters. 

Legally the delegates have no direct power other than to propose changes for the stakeholders to reject.   This means delegate positions are safe from regulation and power truly rests in the hands of the stakeholders.   

Unlike DPOS 1.0 where each delegate operates independently, under DPOS 2.0 delegates are forced to reach consensus directly before any change can be proposed. 


I like the separation of powers and particularly the idea of the genesis account, with its delayed/rejectable txs.. very cool.
Do you envision the genesis account containing funds and making transfers?
Can anyone transfer funds to this account without approval?
http://cryptofresh.com  |  witness: roadscape

Offline pc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1530
    • View Profile
    • Bitcoin - Perspektive oder Risiko?
  • BitShares: cyrano

I don't believe this affects costs, since it's the same number of nodes that have to reach agreement in any given round.

Taking the numbers from the original thread: the 101 active delegates only loose 5% of revenue in exchange for the next 900 nodes getting to sign a block every 48 hours on average.

It increases the cost because it means that the top 1000 delegates have to maintain active nodes and must always be prepared to sign a block. The delegate payments must somehow cover that cost, otherwise 899 of those 1000 have no reason to keep their nodes online - which would result in an overall worse reliability of the network and higher average transaction times.
Bitcoin - Perspektive oder Risiko? ISBN 978-3-8442-6568-2 http://bitcoin.quisquis.de

Offline triox

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 170
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: triox
The number of Witnesses and Delegates is directly voted upon by the stakeholders.    Each stakeholder must vote for at least as many Witnesses and Delegates as they believe the system should have.   The number of witnesses/delegates is defined such that at least 50% of voting shareholders believe there is sufficient decentralization. 

Is this a good moment to reintroduce the idea of partial "witness" randomization?
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,15015

All that does is increase costs.  Under the proposed system there are no limits so if the stakeholders can muster enough votes you can have as many witnesses as desired, but the total COST of operating the system will be higher too and therefore profits will be lower.

I don't believe this affects costs, since it's the same number of nodes that have to reach agreement in any given round.

Taking the numbers from the original thread: the 101 active delegates only loose 5% of revenue in exchange for the next 900 nodes getting to sign a block every 48 hours on average.

This gets even more important under the proposed system, since a lower number of signers will be easier to deanonymize, DDoS or hack. A percentage of signers being from a large pool may be a desirable safety feature.

Offline bytemaster

The number of Witnesses and Delegates is directly voted upon by the stakeholders.    Each stakeholder must vote for at least as many Witnesses and Delegates as they believe the system should have.   The number of witnesses/delegates is defined such that at least 50% of voting shareholders believe there is sufficient decentralization. 

Is this a good moment to reintroduce the idea of partial "witness" randomization?
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,15015

All that does is increase costs.  Under the proposed system there are no limits so if the stakeholders can muster enough votes you can have as many witnesses as desired, but the total COST of operating the system will be higher too and therefore profits will be lower.
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12922
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
This is looking good.

I think while the optics of the term 'witness' don't seem appealing, I can tell that this choice was made largely out of creating some legal protection to the roll and perhaps some flexibility so as to not get hooked into a particular regulatory pigeonhole simply because we call it something. For example, there are certain ramifications if in this 2.0 version instead of calling delegates delegates we called them 'accountants'. In terms of tax code and such, the term 'producer' could have certain ramifications further complicated by what it is we are actually producing.

I think the term denotes a balance to the whole system so that there is still oversight even to each delegate providing a counterparty verification system of sorts. Delegates working with 'producers' almost reminds me of terms like Congress and big business. Witness is more along the lines of what someone who is trusted to verify does.. a notary public for example is needed to witness the verification of documents.. in this case.. the verification of transactions.

Overall as far as 2.0 goes.. this is all far less scarier than it initially felt like it was going to be. While it certainly added a degree of complication.. all higher organisms are complex. We are only seeing a small preview so there is more to this.. if you like it.. TIME TO BUY! :D

I am excited to see how all of this comes together.
I second that!

Offline starspirit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 948
  • Financial markets pro over 20 years
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: starspirit
I like the idea of not forcing workers and delegates to be signers (witnesses). But I feel the witness/worker/delegate role split is possibly too prescriptive. Ultimately we need to allow for many different forms in which people may add value to the system and community, and allow stakeholders to empower them. I suspect that in very little time we may be finding many cases of such people who do not fit any of these 3 prescribed roles.