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: Too many 100% delegates are bad!  (Read 665 times)

Offline bitmarley

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 135
    • View Profile
Too many 100% delegates are bad!
« on: June 26, 2015, 10:41:55 AM »

This is not against any delegates in fact the point is that too many 100% delegates indicates  delegate pay is obviously not enough. How could it be that across the broad range of services that delegates provide they all require the same pay? Of course not. The problem is the pay rates are too low so they are all maxing out at the same 100% rate.

If the pay outs were higher then delegates could reduce their pay rates below 100% and then they would all have different levels and we could compare them against each other. As it is now, the pay outs are so low it seems that they all need 100% settings.

Is there a way to increase the pay outs so that delegates can function at pay rates below 100%?

Is it possible to fix the pay rates to a bitUSD price feed to stabilize delegate pay?


Offline bitmarley

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 135
    • View Profile
Re: Too many 100% delegates are bad!
« Reply #2 on: June 26, 2015, 11:00:43 AM »
Yes but I figured the same problem would still apply, if workers are setting "a pay rate" as a % and they are all maxing it out at 100%. I read the link but there are ambiguities on how this could be implemented. Can you give a brief summarize from your perspective?

Offline Permie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 386
  • BitShares is the mycelium of the financial-earth
    • View Profile
  • BTS: krimduss
Re: Too many 100% delegates are bad!
« Reply #3 on: June 26, 2015, 01:14:06 PM »
The problem is the low market cap. If delegate pay (dilution) was increased then it would/could only serve to crash the price lower in a vicious cycle.

With the worker proposals the market cap may be less of an issue as nearly all dilution is shared among as many workers as bts members desire (vote for).
An important but expensive worker proposal will be able to be voted to the top and take the lions share of the reserve-pool (dilution) funds.
Which should mean that bts can pay a higher fee to workers.

A pre-DPOS 2 solution might be to reduce the number of delegates such that the pay can for individual elected delegates can be higher. Half # of delegates = twice the pay for each.
But members don't seem to want that - else there wouldn't be so many 100% elected delegates.

In 6+ months I don't think it will be such an issue
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline BunkerChain Labs

Re: Too many 100% delegates are bad!
« Reply #4 on: June 26, 2015, 01:40:17 PM »
The problem is the low market cap. If delegate pay (dilution) was increased then it would/could only serve to crash the price lower in a vicious cycle.

With the worker proposals the market cap may be less of an issue as nearly all dilution is shared among as many workers as bts members desire (vote for).
An important but expensive worker proposal will be able to be voted to the top and take the lions share of the reserve-pool (dilution) funds.
Which should mean that bts can pay a higher fee to workers.

A pre-DPOS 2 solution might be to reduce the number of delegates such that the pay can for individual elected delegates can be higher. Half # of delegates = twice the pay for each.
But members don't seem to want that - else there wouldn't be so many 100% elected delegates.

In 6+ months I don't think it will be such an issue

This hasn't been discussed I don't think, but it's more than likely that worker proposals will be introduced in bitAssets of their local currency choice.. ie. bitUSD for Americans or bitEUR for someone from Germany.

As for the too many 100%ers.. I am right in this boat first hand with a project where the delegate pay is not enough to carry the project forward. I have thousands of dollars being lost in this project monthly that does nothing for me at all.. it's all for BitShares.. so community support to turn it into something that can actually double our current volume is essential.

Our project is unique though in that, a great portion of what we receive goes straight into bitUSD payouts that in turn increase volume of bts with collateral, increase user transactions and volume and users etc. Just the liquidity created by the miners alone would make the bitUSD and other Asset markets really rumble.

On top of that, all our activity is taking all altcoins and bitcoins and funneling them into BitUSD.. so also increasing the rate of return on our delegates.

So with the delegate pay we are getting a lot of it is just feeding back into BitShares.

I agree though that in six months this will all change.

If you like to see our delegate proposal.. you can see it here http://vote.bunkermining.com

Probably not the best place to advertise our bid.. a thread about less 100%ers :) .. but now you got another example of where the delegate system as it is just doesn't provide enough for many of these projects to move forward at any super pace.

Our bid was for 6 delegates out of necessity due to the market cap.. and our plan is to get off the delegate pay as fast as possible. I have always been a strong believer that every delegate plan should come with an exit strategy, and I am glad with the new worker setup that will have to be built into contracts clearly.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
www.Peerplays.com | World's First Decentralized Tournament Platform Built Entirely on the Blockchain!
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Offline Permie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 386
  • BitShares is the mycelium of the financial-earth
    • View Profile
  • BTS: krimduss
Re: Too many 100% delegates are bad!
« Reply #5 on: June 26, 2015, 05:07:03 PM »
The problem is the low market cap. If delegate pay (dilution) was increased then it would/could only serve to crash the price lower in a vicious cycle.

With the worker proposals the market cap may be less of an issue as nearly all dilution is shared among as many workers as bts members desire (vote for).
An important but expensive worker proposal will be able to be voted to the top and take the lions share of the reserve-pool (dilution) funds.
Which should mean that bts can pay a higher fee to workers.

A pre-DPOS 2 solution might be to reduce the number of delegates such that the pay can for individual elected delegates can be higher. Half # of delegates = twice the pay for each.
But members don't seem to want that - else there wouldn't be so many 100% elected delegates.

In 6+ months I don't think it will be such an issue

This hasn't been discussed I don't think, but it's more than likely that worker proposals will be introduced in bitAssets of their local currency choice.. ie. bitUSD for Americans or bitEUR for someone from Germany.

As for the too many 100%ers.. I am right in this boat first hand with a project where the delegate pay is not enough to carry the project forward. I have thousands of dollars being lost in this project monthly that does nothing for me at all.. it's all for BitShares.. so community support to turn it into something that can actually double our current volume is essential.

Our project is unique though in that, a great portion of what we receive goes straight into bitUSD payouts that in turn increase volume of bts with collateral, increase user transactions and volume and users etc. Just the liquidity created by the miners alone would make the bitUSD and other Asset markets really rumble.

On top of that, all our activity is taking all altcoins and bitcoins and funneling them into BitUSD.. so also increasing the rate of return on our delegates.

So with the delegate pay we are getting a lot of it is just feeding back into BitShares.

I agree though that in six months this will all change.

If you like to see our delegate proposal.. you can see it here http://vote.bunkermining.com

Probably not the best place to advertise our bid.. a thread about less 100%ers :) .. but now you got another example of where the delegate system as it is just doesn't provide enough for many of these projects to move forward at any super pace.

Our bid was for 6 delegates out of necessity due to the market cap.. and our plan is to get off the delegate pay as fast as possible. I have always been a strong believer that every delegate plan should come with an exit strategy, and I am glad with the new worker setup that will have to be built into contracts clearly.
Keep advertising!
Bunkermining is one of the best uses for delegate pay at the moment, IMO.
Excluding core development I think all delegate pay should go towards stimulating the bts economy and providing the liquidity that so many other use-cases need.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline bitmarley

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 135
    • View Profile
Re: Too many 100% delegates are bad!
« Reply #6 on: July 18, 2015, 01:18:16 PM »
The problem is the low market cap. If delegate pay (dilution) was increased then it would/could only serve to crash the price lower in a vicious cycle.



In the case of BitShares development investment should be a function of dilution. Unlike bitcoin BitShares dilution feeds directly back into delegate pool which are selected by Stakeholders. With bitcoin dilution goes to mining power only so miners have no incentive to compete based upon development, marketing and other community contributions. That was the brilliance of the original delegate model. Is the community forgetting this????

Perhaps the issue stems from binary voting and stakeholders need more fine tuning to control delegate funding. To fix this perhaps delegates specify how much they need in bitUSD and then stake holders respond by specifying the same. For example, a delegate may request 4000 bitUSD per month and stake holders may authorize 3000 bitUSD per month.

Additionally perhaps there could be a special kind of BTS which cannot be sold within 6 months as an extra incentive on top of what is already offered. Like a long term stock option. Delegates and stakeholders could negotiate custom amounts of each through a finer tune voting mechanism.

The reality is we as a community need to fund development. We cannot wait 6 months since the network effect principle means we are in a race. If we wait and lose then our whole investment will fail. We must build mechanisms that result in the fastest development. And we should align incentives so that funding works via the voting mechanism.




Offline btswildpig

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1392
    • View Profile
Re: Too many 100% delegates are bad!
« Reply #7 on: July 18, 2015, 02:05:31 PM »
The problem is the low market cap. If delegate pay (dilution) was increased then it would/could only serve to crash the price lower in a vicious cycle.



In the case of BitShares development investment should be a function of dilution. Unlike bitcoin BitShares dilution feeds directly back into delegate pool which are selected by Stakeholders. With bitcoin dilution goes to mining power only so miners have no incentive to compete based upon development, marketing and other community contributions. That was the brilliance of the original delegate model. Is the community forgetting this????

Perhaps the issue stems from binary voting and stakeholders need more fine tuning to control delegate funding. To fix this perhaps delegates specify how much they need in bitUSD and then stake holders respond by specifying the same. For example, a delegate may request 4000 bitUSD per month and stake holders may authorize 3000 bitUSD per month.

Additionally perhaps there could be a special kind of BTS which cannot be sold within 6 months as an extra incentive on top of what is already offered. Like a long term stock option. Delegates and stakeholders could negotiate custom amounts of each through a finer tune voting mechanism.

The reality is we as a community need to fund development. We cannot wait 6 months since the network effect principle means we are in a race. If we wait and lose then our whole investment will fail. We must build mechanisms that result in the fastest development. And we should align incentives so that funding works via the voting mechanism.

That is not true . I fact , Bitcoin dilution grew a whole industry ---- mining that is on the front line of promoting bitcoin .
Miners are not silly . Small time miners may not care for the marketing for bitcoin , but big time miner and mining machine manufacturer keep contributing on bitcoin promotion , and market making , market depth , etc ....

So , dilution of bitcoin did give back to the bitcoin community in the way of promotion and marketing by active mining operations that wants to keep their business forever .
Their incentive is , if bitcoin goes down , their expensive mining operation will become worthless . They don't need to compete on performance , they're not working on it as their 'job" like delegates . They're working on it as their 'business" . It's a whole different mind set .
这个是私人账号,表达的一切言论均不代表任何团队和任何人。This is my personal account , anything I said with this account will be my opinion alone and has nothing to do with any group.

Offline BunkerChain Labs

Re: Too many 100% delegates are bad!
« Reply #8 on: July 18, 2015, 02:44:53 PM »

The reality is we as a community need to fund development. We cannot wait 6 months since the network effect principle means we are in a race. If we wait and lose then our whole investment will fail. We must build mechanisms that result in the fastest development. And we should align incentives so that funding works via the voting mechanism.

Completely agree... development for the MineBitshares project has been stagnant due to not having enough funds for its completion.. so we were in a bid to get multiple delegates voted for. We got one; that effectively just leaves us saving up the difference for the rest and going almost nowhere in the mean time. All it would cost is a vote, and we could have been well on our way by now with a system pulling INTO BitShares nearly $100k USD volume a day with tons of transactions and new users. We are poised to literally ingest the rest of the cypto mining world into BitShares.. just not enough to get to the 101 and get it done.

http://vote.bunkermining.com if you still would like to see that. Our other delegates are sitting at 106!
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
www.Peerplays.com | World's First Decentralized Tournament Platform Built Entirely on the Blockchain!
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Offline bitmarley

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 135
    • View Profile
Re: Too many 100% delegates are bad!
« Reply #9 on: July 18, 2015, 04:01:58 PM »
That is not true . I fact , Bitcoin dilution grew a whole industry ---- mining that is on the front line of promoting bitcoin .


I agree. But the main point of my post was that bitcoin miners do not compete on that basis. They compete on the basis of mining power. Whereas BitShares delegates compete on more levels.

Offline JoeyD

Re: Too many 100% delegates are bad!
« Reply #10 on: July 18, 2015, 10:10:23 PM »
[...] All it would cost is a vote, and we could have been well on our way by now with a system pulling INTO BitShares nearly $100k USD volume a day with tons of transactions and new users. We are poised to literally ingest the rest of the cypto mining world into BitShares.. just not enough to get to the 101 and get it done.

http://vote.bunkermining.com if you still would like to see that. Our other delegates are sitting at 106!

Sorry if this message is redundant, but have you got your message across to the Chinese community? It has been suggested that they own the majority voting power and the Chinese sure as hell have a large mining community.

Offline BunkerChain Labs

Re: Too many 100% delegates are bad!
« Reply #11 on: July 19, 2015, 03:22:24 AM »
[...] All it would cost is a vote, and we could have been well on our way by now with a system pulling INTO BitShares nearly $100k USD volume a day with tons of transactions and new users. We are poised to literally ingest the rest of the cypto mining world into BitShares.. just not enough to get to the 101 and get it done.

http://vote.bunkermining.com if you still would like to see that. Our other delegates are sitting at 106!

Sorry if this message is redundant, but have you got your message across to the Chinese community? It has been suggested that they own the majority voting power and the Chinese sure as hell have a large mining community.

I paid to have our bid translated into Chinese and reached out to wildpig to convey our bid also at fuzzs request on behalf of beyondbitcoin. I never saw much from it. However, we are sitting on the edge now with our delegates in the 106 rank.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
www.Peerplays.com | World's First Decentralized Tournament Platform Built Entirely on the Blockchain!
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Offline btswildpig

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1392
    • View Profile
Re: Too many 100% delegates are bad!
« Reply #12 on: July 19, 2015, 04:55:04 AM »
[...] All it would cost is a vote, and we could have been well on our way by now with a system pulling INTO BitShares nearly $100k USD volume a day with tons of transactions and new users. We are poised to literally ingest the rest of the cypto mining world into BitShares.. just not enough to get to the 101 and get it done.

http://vote.bunkermining.com if you still would like to see that. Our other delegates are sitting at 106!

Sorry if this message is redundant, but have you got your message across to the Chinese community? It has been suggested that they own the majority voting power and the Chinese sure as hell have a large mining community.

Mining community in China despise BTS for not being POW distributed .
And BTSer in China hates mining .  :o

Also , only BTC and LTC mining is China are considered "mainstream" , multi-pool mining is not really popular . And unlike Bitcoin and LTC miners , multi-pool miners won't normally promote the coins they mine .
« Last Edit: July 19, 2015, 05:02:47 AM by btswildpig »
这个是私人账号,表达的一切言论均不代表任何团队和任何人。This is my personal account , anything I said with this account will be my opinion alone and has nothing to do with any group.

Offline JoeyD

Re: Too many 100% delegates are bad!
« Reply #13 on: July 19, 2015, 08:33:12 AM »
[...] All it would cost is a vote, and we could have been well on our way by now with a system pulling INTO BitShares nearly $100k USD volume a day with tons of transactions and new users. We are poised to literally ingest the rest of the cypto mining world into BitShares.. just not enough to get to the 101 and get it done.

http://vote.bunkermining.com if you still would like to see that. Our other delegates are sitting at 106!

Sorry if this message is redundant, but have you got your message across to the Chinese community? It has been suggested that they own the majority voting power and the Chinese sure as hell have a large mining community.

Mining community in China despise BTS for not being POW distributed .
And BTSer in China hates mining .  :o

Also , only BTC and LTC mining is China are considered "mainstream" , multi-pool mining is not really popular . And unlike Bitcoin and LTC miners , multi-pool miners won't normally promote the coins they mine .

Not that much different from the Western BTS-community then. Plus multipools are hated by most coin communities with a passion. One notable example is the development of dpos as a reaction to the selfish multipool miners in pow-pts. I'm kinda curious how you got to the  $100k per day number. This is not the first or only POS-multipool attempt (iirc it was BlackCoin who started it) and the listed daily numbers would have been difficult targets for a multipool even in the ATH-era over a year ago.

In short, the bts-community is a tough audience to convince on mining, plus I'm kinda worried about negative backlash from those communities. Would a different twist be possible as a kind of multi-dpos-migration pool? Where miners get paid in dpos variants of their coin. In addition to offering/funding those communities an upgrade path towards dpos (maybe using the snapshot/sharedrop mechanic) instead of being seen as an attack.

Offline BunkerChain Labs

Re: Too many 100% delegates are bad!
« Reply #14 on: July 19, 2015, 02:13:46 PM »
[...] All it would cost is a vote, and we could have been well on our way by now with a system pulling INTO BitShares nearly $100k USD volume a day with tons of transactions and new users. We are poised to literally ingest the rest of the cypto mining world into BitShares.. just not enough to get to the 101 and get it done.

http://vote.bunkermining.com if you still would like to see that. Our other delegates are sitting at 106!

Sorry if this message is redundant, but have you got your message across to the Chinese community? It has been suggested that they own the majority voting power and the Chinese sure as hell have a large mining community.

Mining community in China despise BTS for not being POW distributed .
And BTSer in China hates mining .  :o

Also , only BTC and LTC mining is China are considered "mainstream" , multi-pool mining is not really popular . And unlike Bitcoin and LTC miners , multi-pool miners won't normally promote the coins they mine .

Not that much different from the Western BTS-community then. Plus multipools are hated by most coin communities with a passion. One notable example is the development of dpos as a reaction to the selfish multipool miners in pow-pts. I'm kinda curious how you got to the  $100k per day number. This is not the first or only POS-multipool attempt (iirc it was BlackCoin who started it) and the listed daily numbers would have been difficult targets for a multipool even in the ATH-era over a year ago.

In short, the bts-community is a tough audience to convince on mining, plus I'm kinda worried about negative backlash from those communities. Would a different twist be possible as a kind of multi-dpos-migration pool? Where miners get paid in dpos variants of their coin. In addition to offering/funding those communities an upgrade path towards dpos (maybe using the snapshot/sharedrop mechanic) instead of being seen as an attack.

Where did you get this notion of being seen as an attack?

I fail to see how what you are suggesting is going to have any value benefit to miners that would be attractive. If a pool is profitable, reliable, and consistent.. they are there, and so are their friends not long after. There are technical challenges to achieving that though that require fair amount of crypto programming.

Beyond this though our phase 3 would not rely on this any longer, and phase 4 would expand beyond what is available now in mining resources.

$100k per day is a conservative estimate at present market cap of 9% total market penetration of what can be produced from all algos of mining at present. We can achieve that in Phase 3 development.


+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
www.Peerplays.com | World's First Decentralized Tournament Platform Built Entirely on the Blockchain!
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

 

Google+