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: PROPOSAL: Chance for pending delegates  (Read 577 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline bitmeat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1116
    • View Profile
PROPOSAL: Chance for pending delegates
« on: July 20, 2014, 06:58:36 PM »

Why couldn't we have after every 100 elected delegates forge a block, give 1 block to a pending delegate as a chance to prove their worth / uptime / gather stats?

That way people can vote on pending delegates based on their stats, worse case scenario - we have 1 missing block every 100 blocks. But I'm sure pending delegates would never want to miss a block.

We could also select them randomly based on their current votes as a %.

Offline bytemaster

Re: PROPOSAL: Chance for pending delegates
« Reply #1 on: July 20, 2014, 07:08:01 PM »
I think this is a good idea, it will require a hard fork to implement it.  Every round can select on honorary pending delegate (the 100 trusted + 1 pending making a total of 101)

We need to file ideas like this under things to consider in the next hard fork.
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 liondani

Re: PROPOSAL: Chance for pending delegates
« Reply #2 on: July 21, 2014, 04:50:00 AM »
What about the conversation we had here?

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=5317.0

it is related I think...


what about that?

Could it be dynamic? or have shareholders also vote for the total number of delegates?

+5% for dynamic number of delegates

Sent from my ALCATEL ONE TOUCH 997D using Tapatalk
  https://bitshares.OPENLEDGER.info/?r=GREECE  | You are in Control | BUY | SELL | SHORT | SWAP | LOAN | TRADE |  

Offline bitmeat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1116
    • View Profile
Re: PROPOSAL: Chance for pending delegates
« Reply #3 on: July 21, 2014, 04:55:07 AM »
That is a fine point as well. I actually thought 100 delegates feels way too centralized. And we haven't even started yet. How many bitcoin miners are out there again? And we say they are too centralized?

I mean at this point I won't be surprised if people start pooling up to have 1 delegate and share earnings.

So, that said I would be much happier with 1000 delegates. However I think there may have been a technical difficulty with 1000, but I'm not sure.

Offline sfinder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1205
  • 4 Cores CPU+100GB SSD+anti-DDoS Pro
    • View Profile
Re: PROPOSAL: Chance for pending delegates
« Reply #4 on: July 21, 2014, 04:57:15 AM »
 +5% +5% +5% +5%
微博:星在飘我在找|BTS X 受托人delegate ID:baidu
中国教育书店合作将20%收入捐献给贫困山区学生。
Cooperating with China Education Bookstore and will donate 20% of delegate income to the poor students

Offline Simeon II

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 356
    • View Profile
Re: PROPOSAL: Chance for pending delegates
« Reply #5 on: July 21, 2014, 05:04:14 AM »

I kind of agree on 2 fronts.
Little birdy tells me:

-100 is for speed (100 is faster than 1000).
-It also provides 10x the income for one delegate.

Facts of life… no birdie whisperer in my ear.

Offline bitmeat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1116
    • View Profile
Re: PROPOSAL: Chance for pending delegates
« Reply #6 on: July 21, 2014, 05:11:43 AM »
You do realize each block is signed only by one delegate. So... how is that about speed again? if you have 1000 delegates, what exactly is slower? Is it that to be 100% sure there won't be a fork you have to wait for 501 confirmations instead of 51?

Offline Simeon II

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 356
    • View Profile
Re: PROPOSAL: Chance for pending delegates
« Reply #7 on: July 21, 2014, 05:19:21 AM »
Something like that.

Plus additional complications as knowing  the next 100/1000 block producers.

After all, if all goes well we will probably end up with 1000 to 5000 delegates about the time we overtake BTC.
« Last Edit: July 21, 2014, 05:21:43 AM by Simeon II »

Offline bitmeat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1116
    • View Profile
Re: PROPOSAL: Chance for pending delegates
« Reply #8 on: July 21, 2014, 05:27:38 AM »
BTC serves a very important role - it is the easiest way to convert between fiat and crypto. (for now, and likely forever)

But it might not always be the best store of value in the long run, it might just be reduced to a gateway down the road.

Offline liondani

Re: PROPOSAL: Chance for pending delegates
« Reply #9 on: July 21, 2014, 05:34:43 AM »

I kind of agree on 2 fronts.
Little birdy tells me:

-100 is for speed (100 is faster than 1000).
-It also provides 10x the income for one delegate.

Facts of life… no birdie whisperer in my ear.

if you read the thread you will see that it exist's a solution to keep about the same speed... 
bytemaster:  "You are correct, I can randomly select 101 from the top N where N is arbitrarily large."

The income is something crucial that is a fact. We don't want to have to many delegates because then it could be the case that it is not worth to be a delegate!
Like the most NXT forgers right now are loosing money!

But I think it would be a very easy task for bytemaster to find a formula that change the number of delegates in a way that all stay happy...



PS With 101 delegates it is easier to have security issues then with more...

take for example the "init" delegates, it is obvious they are all in one place located. Imagine because of a server problem (I think it happend on one Dry Run) they get all off block production,
imagine now that some more delegates are also on the same place located... What does it mean? That means that immediately the blockchain_average_delegate_participation percentage could
drop from 96% to 30%.... well that would be is not a comfortable feeling...

If we could be sure that each delegate is a different node then maybe 101 would be enough, the problem is that we don't. And we know that multiple delegates are running from one single node. I have for example more than 10 delegates. Assume all my delegates get active and the same is the case with other delegate owners... Yep!!! that means practicaly the nodes could be only 10 and not 101...   10 computers or even less could secure all the network... that's scary don't you think?
  https://bitshares.OPENLEDGER.info/?r=GREECE  | You are in Control | BUY | SELL | SHORT | SWAP | LOAN | TRADE |  

Offline liondani

Re: PROPOSAL: Chance for pending delegates
« Reply #10 on: July 21, 2014, 05:37:29 AM »
You do realize each block is signed only by one delegate. So... how is that about speed again? if you have 1000 delegates, what exactly is slower? Is it that to be 100% sure there won't be a fork you have to wait for 501 confirmations instead of 51?





We discused that and we found a solution....

delegate count also affects confirmation time.  The more delegates the longer you must wait for confirmation and the longer you must wait for random numbers.



You can still use 101 delegates (the half for the confirmation...) on every block confirmation...

Let's say because of added delegates you have right now 404 "active" delegates...
you split them in 4 equal blocks (see graph)... 101.101.101.101
and you pick one random* block (of 101 delegates) to make what you do right now (the "dirty" work)  ;)

In the long run all delegates will be paid the same average amount because all had the same opportunity...
The only thing that changes of course is a little bit higher standard deviation on payments amounts ;)


*PS  the confirmation time should not change significantly


You are correct, I can randomly select 101 from the top N where N is arbitrarily large.
However, if you increase the number of delegates under approval voting you are also increasing the size of the average transaction by a proportional amount.
« Last Edit: July 21, 2014, 05:39:48 AM by liondani »
  https://bitshares.OPENLEDGER.info/?r=GREECE  | You are in Control | BUY | SELL | SHORT | SWAP | LOAN | TRADE |  

Offline bitmeat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1116
    • View Profile
Re: PROPOSAL: Chance for pending delegates
« Reply #11 on: July 21, 2014, 05:38:31 AM »
How are NXT forgers losing money? It's not like you need a crazy equipment to mine? Digital signature can be done on a freaking Raspberry Pi, come on! :)

Anyways. Either way it seems there will be a hard fork at some point, so best for BM to gather all the ideas and find an optimal solution for next version.

Offline bitmeat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1116
    • View Profile
Re: PROPOSAL: Chance for pending delegates
« Reply #12 on: July 21, 2014, 05:40:27 AM »
Also a block could be given to 10 delegates instead of 1, that way there is some competition on signing the block. Although that would create a ton of forks, but there will be no missing blocks.

Offline Simeon II

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 356
    • View Profile
Re: PROPOSAL: Chance for pending delegates
« Reply #13 on: July 21, 2014, 05:55:13 AM »
There is a crazy theory why this is bad ( i.e. wallets competing for blocks).... I3/BM have crazy theories for all but what they/he suggests. The only way to suggest ANYTHING to them is to post under Agent86 account. I have no idea how you hack his ID, but if you do whatever you suggest will be accepted! It just has to only pass the minimal logic requirement - like 1 vote should count for at least 1 vote.
« Last Edit: July 21, 2014, 06:00:03 AM by Simeon II »

Offline bitmeat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1116
    • View Profile
Re: PROPOSAL: Chance for pending delegates
« Reply #14 on: July 21, 2014, 05:59:20 AM »
I'm working on design of something completely alternative to a block chain. Chains are linear, and hence will always be a bottleneck.

I'm targeting 2,000 transactions per second. When that happens, sayonara BTC, BTSX, etc. (unless they adapt and adopt such method)

But it is a very hard problem to solve.

 

Google+