Author Topic: BAD DELEGATES VOTED IN OVERNIGHT?!?!  (Read 22253 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline cylonmaker2053

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1004
  • Saving the world one block at a time
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: cylonmaker2053
How can the amount of BTS needed to vote into the 101 decrease?

As far as I know collateral doesn't count towards your votes. I think this is changing. but for now if someone with millions of BTS did a large short it could reduce the number of voting shares by a noticeable amount.

well that sucks bc shorting adds value to the asset markets, liquidity to the system. you'd think shorting would be encouraged, or at least not discouraged.

I believe this is changing in the upcoming update.

 +5% +5% +5%

Offline BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode

How can the amount of BTS needed to vote into the 101 decrease?

As far as I know collateral doesn't count towards your votes. I think this is changing. but for now if someone with millions of BTS did a large short it could reduce the number of voting shares by a noticeable amount.

well that sucks bc shorting adds value to the asset markets, liquidity to the system. you'd think shorting would be encouraged, or at least not discouraged.

I believe this is changing in the upcoming update.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
www.Peerplays.com | Decentralized Gaming Built with Graphene - Now with BookiePro and Sweeps!
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Offline cylonmaker2053

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1004
  • Saving the world one block at a time
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: cylonmaker2053
How can the amount of BTS needed to vote into the 101 decrease?

As far as I know collateral doesn't count towards your votes. I think this is changing. but for now if someone with millions of BTS did a large short it could reduce the number of voting shares by a noticeable amount.

well that sucks bc shorting adds value to the asset markets, liquidity to the system. you'd think shorting would be encouraged, or at least not discouraged.

Offline BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode



Check this out... yesterday it took 231+ million BTS to get into the 101

Today it suddenly DROPPED by over 60 million BTS down to 181+ million

Now we have 2 delegates in the 101 that DON'T EVEN HAVE SERVERS RUNNING!!!


Lol....the irony...this is ridiculous.

Why is this ironic, they are "Some of our current top delegates" ... https://bitshares.org/delegates

Yikes! paging @cass for updates.

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
www.Peerplays.com | Decentralized Gaming Built with Graphene - Now with BookiePro and Sweeps!
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

38PTSWarrior

  • Guest

Offline mint chocolate chip



Check this out... yesterday it took 231+ million BTS to get into the 101

Today it suddenly DROPPED by over 60 million BTS down to 181+ million

Now we have 2 delegates in the 101 that DON'T EVEN HAVE SERVERS RUNNING!!!


Lol....the irony...this is ridiculous.

Why is this ironic, they are "Some of our current top delegates" ... https://bitshares.org/delegates

Offline BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode

Personally I will vote 10 delegates from one person/DAC, if that DAC/person is known for forcing BitShares to go in the good direction.
And that is totally where the bunker project is leading bts, with others of course because we are all in this together. But at least they show a real contribution to the whole image in contrary of some delegates already in the 101 positions.
I am not criticizing anyone here, but just exposing facts.

 +5% Data SecurityNodes you have my full support

Wow.. glowing show of support like this certainly makes the uphill battle feel a lot lighter.

Thanks so much for your support!



Now that my wallet is fixed I'm going to as well.


 +5%
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
www.Peerplays.com | Decentralized Gaming Built with Graphene - Now with BookiePro and Sweeps!
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Offline fuzzy

Personally I will vote 10 delegates from one person/DAC, if that DAC/person is known for forcing BitShares to go in the good direction.
And that is totally where the bunker project is leading bts, with others of course because we are all in this together. But at least they show a real contribution to the whole image in contrary of some delegates already in the 101 positions.
I am not criticizing anyone here, but just exposing facts.

 +5% Data SecurityNodes you have my full support

Wow.. glowing show of support like this certainly makes the uphill battle feel a lot lighter.

Thanks so much for your support!



Now that my wallet is fixed I'm going to as well.
WhaleShares==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits and WhaleShares = Love :D

Offline BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode

Personally I will vote 10 delegates from one person/DAC, if that DAC/person is known for forcing BitShares to go in the good direction.
And that is totally where the bunker project is leading bts, with others of course because we are all in this together. But at least they show a real contribution to the whole image in contrary of some delegates already in the 101 positions.
I am not criticizing anyone here, but just exposing facts.

 +5% Data SecurityNodes you have my full support

Wow.. glowing show of support like this certainly makes the uphill battle feel a lot lighter.

Thanks so much for your support!

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
www.Peerplays.com | Decentralized Gaming Built with Graphene - Now with BookiePro and Sweeps!
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Offline BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode

I think if you look at our bid we clearly stated that the six are temporary until dpos 2.0 comes around to which we would wind down to one or even none. We are just working within the constraints of the current setup... and why not create a little DPOS history? If more than two is so bad... how come btsnow has been voted in for several months with four? Do they need to be removed now?

Being decentralised is a key part of what makes a DAC valuable. BTS already takes heat for limiting the amount of decentralisation to 101 delegates, or 51 to gain temporary control.

With BTSNOW having 4, you having 6, Riverhead having 3 I think and many others having 2, the number of people that need to be targeted would be getting close to just 20. I personally don't think that is decentralised enough.

If your 6 delegates were in the top 101 it would draw more attention to this issue and I don't think the blowback & negative PR will offset the gains those additional delegates may bring. I also think now that BTS is on the rise again and looks to have clear skies till we evaluate the early June announcements that it is worth the risk. It's only my opinion though.

I don't think it was discussed in forums but in mumble.. but there is likely going to be a move in the future to make the witness network more dynamic in its operation. In other words there won't be a hard and fast 101 in and the rest on standby anymore. Instead it would be more dynamic and based on the needs of the networks transaction processing.

As you have noted already, we don't even have a true 101 as it is. In theory, this is bad. However, lets look at the reality of it. We still have nearly instant transactions, we haven't had any bad players attempt to destroy the network, and there hasn't been a conspiracy to collude as all the theories would be concerned with. Given that it going to happen with the communities support I don't see where this backlash would come from exactly. Again, I point to the existing 4 with btsnow.. I have never seen a thread of public outcry about that.

Just to be clear though, I don't have six yet. :) .. HOWEVER, we do at PRESENT control 4. Two of the delegates we run are 3% however and are not really contributing to the project. It's been attempted in the past to ask people to change their votes from those to these new ones but not so easy.

Keep in mind, this all happened largely due to the market cap of BTS falling out from under us and leaving even a 100% delegate starving. $300 a month doesn't go far when you are paying out $50 a day.

If the market cap continues to rise significantly, this will help our project a great deal. However, thats all pie in the sky, and the need to move is now.

We all know DPOS 2.0 is just around the corner... so making some DPOS 1.0 history isn't going to blow anything up. It's all just temporary until the Three Branches of Delegation come into effect (TBD) with 2.0.

VOTE NOW! :)

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
www.Peerplays.com | Decentralized Gaming Built with Graphene - Now with BookiePro and Sweeps!
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Offline karnal

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1068
    • View Profile
I remember something like this happened 2-3 months ago as well.  I think it was due to an exchange accidentally using an old delegate slate.
Yea it was btc38 voting with their cold storage, they subsequently withdrew all their votes except for market.cn.group101, which is why they're #1

Shady practice if you ask me.

Offline mangou007

Personally I will vote 10 delegates from one person/DAC, if that DAC/person is known for forcing BitShares to go in the good direction.
And that is totally where the bunker project is leading bts, with others of course because we are all in this together. But at least they show a real contribution to the whole image in contrary of some delegates already in the 101 positions.
I am not criticizing anyone here, but just exposing facts.

 +5% Data SecurityNodes you have my full support
BitShares French ConneXion, le portail francophone de BitShares
BitShares French ConneXion, the BitShares French gateway
www.bitsharesfcx.com

Offline Pheonike

Why are you running 6 delegates. A lot of voters would be turned off by such large number of delegates run by the same person from the same location.

Low market cap, low transactions, low liquidity, and low user adoption are even bigger turn offs I think.

Our Delegate bid hits on raising all that among other things. You are welcome to explore the why at http://vote.bunkermining.com that is stated at the very beginning.

The need for 6 is was only driven by community support and the ow market cap reality of bitshares for what is required of this operation.

Voting for our delegates means a vote for higher market cap and raising BitShares standing in the crypto space overall.

I also think having delegates elected that don't even have servers operational is far worse, which was what this thread is about.

If the idea that someone operating 6 delegates who is building up bitshares and maintaining responsible delegate infrastructure for the network in contrast to that is somehow a turn-off in contrast to having delegates in the 101 that dont' even exist, then I can't argue that.

Keep in mind we already have someone (btsnow) with 4 delegates for a long time now, and Bitshares has survived.

Moonstone has had designs to get 5 Delegates elected as part of their crowdfund.

Our bid is quite different though.. everything we do flows back to BitShares and creates a buy/sell market pressure that is consistent day to day. We need to expand.. now.

Not sure how having Bitshares eco-system buying PoW waste is beneficial to Bitshares, I thought the whole idea of PoS is to avoid such waste. The entire idea of "minebitshares.com" is ridiculous to me.

Six 100% delegate controlled by one person from one location, if elected, would be an example of failure of DPoS. In this case, yes two non-operational delegates would be preferable to six 100% delegates controlled by the same person. Especially this person is spending the money on buying PoW waste.

Please read what a proposal/projects does before attacking it.

Offline Empirical1.2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1366
    • View Profile
I think if you look at our bid we clearly stated that the six are temporary until dpos 2.0 comes around to which we would wind down to one or even none. We are just working within the constraints of the current setup... and why not create a little DPOS history? If more than two is so bad... how come btsnow has been voted in for several months with four? Do they need to be removed now?

Being decentralised is a key part of what makes a DAC valuable. BTS already takes heat for limiting the amount of decentralisation to 101 delegates, or 51 to gain temporary control.

With BTSNOW having 4, you having 6, Riverhead having 3 I think and many others having 2, the number of people that need to be targeted would be getting close to just 20. I personally don't think that is decentralised enough.

If your 6 delegates were in the top 101 it would draw more attention to this issue and I don't think the blowback & negative PR will offset the gains those additional delegates may bring. I also think now that BTS is on the rise again and looks to have clear skies till we evaluate the early June announcements that it is worth the risk. It's only my opinion though.
If you want to take the island burn the boats

Offline BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode

I think if you look at our bid we clearly stated that the six are temporary until dpos 2.0 comes around to which we would wind down to one or even none. We are just working within the constraints of the current setup... and why not create a little DPOS history? If more than two is so bad... how come btsnow has been voted in for several months with four? Do they need to be removed now?
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
www.Peerplays.com | Decentralized Gaming Built with Graphene - Now with BookiePro and Sweeps!
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+