Get rid of init delegates

[puppies]

I was one of the delegates that made it in (while I was sleeping) and was only able to produce 75% of my blocks.  I have dug through the logs and don't see any reason for missing these blocks.  Looking at the forks from my seed node shows a pretty massive latency before it received my delegates blocks 18 and 14 seconds.  I'm not sure if the two nodes were connected at the time, but they usually are.  So I am not sure if it was a network issue, or if my delegate just fired late.

I have increased the ram on my VPS and am curious if that will improve its performance.  My other thought is around geographical location as my delegate node is based on the US west coast.

There are periodic network glitches that could cause your node to hang and miss a block.  We are attempting to find the cause.

Thanks for voting me back in Dan.   So far my node hasn't missed a block.   I'm not sure if that's due to the increased ran,  or just good luck.

[alt]

I have added ntp.  When I blockchain_list_forks my delegate of course shows zero latency on my orphaned blocks,  and shows then as being created at the correct time.   Is there a bug that prevents the node from broadcasting those in a timely fashion?   Would any logs help or do you already have a large enough sample size?

the same happened to me, the block seems never broadcast out.

来自我的 HUAWEI P7-L00 上的 Tapatalk

[bitcoinerS]

I have added ntp.  When I blockchain_list_forks my delegate of course shows zero latency on my orphaned blocks,  and shows then as being created at the correct time.   Is there a bug that prevents the node from broadcasting those in a timely fashion?   Would any logs help or do you already have a large enough sample size?

What does your delegate node show if you type get_info?

[puppies]

I have added ntp.  When I blockchain_list_forks my delegate of course shows zero latency on my orphaned blocks,  and shows then as being created at the correct time.   Is there a bug that prevents the node from broadcasting those in a timely fashion?   Would any logs help or do you already have a large enough sample size?

[bytemaster]

I was one of the delegates that made it in (while I was sleeping) and was only able to produce 75% of my blocks.  I have dug through the logs and don't see any reason for missing these blocks.  Looking at the forks from my seed node shows a pretty massive latency before it received my delegates blocks 18 and 14 seconds.  I'm not sure if the two nodes were connected at the time, but they usually are.  So I am not sure if it was a network issue, or if my delegate just fired late.

I have increased the ram on my VPS and am curious if that will improve its performance.  My other thought is around geographical location as my delegate node is based on the US west coast.

There are periodic network glitches that could cause your node to hang and miss a block.  We are attempting to find the cause.

[bitmeat]

Add nntp server for better time sync

[puppies]

I was one of the delegates that made it in (while I was sleeping) and was only able to produce 75% of my blocks.  I have dug through the logs and don't see any reason for missing these blocks.  Looking at the forks from my seed node shows a pretty massive latency before it received my delegates blocks 18 and 14 seconds.  I'm not sure if the two nodes were connected at the time, but they usually are.  So I am not sure if it was a network issue, or if my delegate just fired late.

I have increased the ram on my VPS and am curious if that will improve its performance.  My other thought is around geographical location as my delegate node is based on the US west coast.

[Riverhead]

Not true... people are buying / selling on this chain and that is for keeps...

Doh - of course.  I need more coffee  .

[alt]

I allowed a few more people in and unvoted some of the init delegates and the network fell to condition yellow.... with 85% participation rate. 

For the health of the network while it is still young having a strong core at is important.  Once we get back to condition green I will remove some more init delegates.

In the mean time we are working on many bug fixes.

.. thats my concern too .. some delegates dont take it seriously enough

Ps: thanks for voting me in

At this point in the game we should not blame delegates for missing some blocks (note even init delegates missed some).  There are bugs in the network code that cause things to hang from time to time and even delegates with nodes up miss.   We are working on fixing as many issues as possible.

DAC Sun Limited released things earlier than I would have liked, but at least things are running and people are liquid.   The cost of early release is higher reliance on the initial delegates until the system is robust enough to handle all of the edge cases.

thanks for your vote 

[bytemaster]

[
At this point in the game we should not blame delegates for missing some blocks (note even init delegates missed some).  There are bugs in the network code that cause things to hang from time to time and even delegates with nodes up miss.   We are working on fixing as many issues as possible.

DAC Sun Limited released things earlier than I would have liked, but at least things are running and people are liquid.   The cost of early release is higher reliance on the initial delegates until the system is robust enough to handle all of the edge cases.

I guess at this point since the only BTSX on the chain are imported from existing wallets a full chain reset wouldn't really cost anyone anything except time (minus fees earned).

Like paying poker with real money vs fake chips I have found the real deal much more educational than the tests now that I have real skin in the game.

Not true... people are buying / selling on this chain and that is for keeps...

[Riverhead]

[
At this point in the game we should not blame delegates for missing some blocks (note even init delegates missed some).  There are bugs in the network code that cause things to hang from time to time and even delegates with nodes up miss.   We are working on fixing as many issues as possible.

DAC Sun Limited released things earlier than I would have liked, but at least things are running and people are liquid.   The cost of early release is higher reliance on the initial delegates until the system is robust enough to handle all of the edge cases.

I guess at this point since the only BTSX on the chain are imported from existing wallets a full chain reset wouldn't really cost anyone anything except time (minus fees earned).

Like paying poker with real money vs fake chips I have found the real deal much more educational than the tests now that I have real skin in the game.

[bytemaster]

I allowed a few more people in and unvoted some of the init delegates and the network fell to condition yellow.... with 85% participation rate. 

For the health of the network while it is still young having a strong core at is important.  Once we get back to condition green I will remove some more init delegates.

In the mean time we are working on many bug fixes.

.. thats my concern too .. some delegates dont take it seriously enough

Ps: thanks for voting me in

At this point in the game we should not blame delegates for missing some blocks (note even init delegates missed some).  There are bugs in the network code that cause things to hang from time to time and even delegates with nodes up miss.   We are working on fixing as many issues as possible.

It was released earlier than I would have liked, but at least things are running and people are liquid.   The cost of early release is higher reliance on the initial delegates until the system is robust enough to handle all of the edge cases.

[Ggozzo]

I allowed a few more people in and unvoted some of the init delegates and the network fell to condition yellow.... with 85% participation rate. 

For the health of the network while it is still young having a strong core at is important.  Once we get back to condition green I will remove some more init delegates.

In the mean time we are working on many bug fixes.

Is that why I was getting a network performance problem at the bottom?

[Ggozzo]

If we aren't going to push for a more decentralized structure or if we are just unable to at this early stage, can you guys at the very least change the names of you delegates to arbitrary unrelated names. When you have joeblow1, joeblow2, joeblow3.... and so on,  it gives a sense of centralization to see anything less than 101 separately controlled delegates to outsiders. Let's at the very least project the illusion of 101 different delegates.

I may seem altruistic, but this is not my intention. I am motivated to protect what little investment I made. I the only way I see it paying off is for this project to be as decentralized as it can be. Plus I want to be able to trade eventually.

[xeroc]

I allowed a few more people in and unvoted some of the init delegates and the network fell to condition yellow.... with 85% participation rate. 

For the health of the network while it is still young having a strong core at is important.  Once we get back to condition green I will remove some more init delegates.

In the mean time we are working on many bug fixes.

.. thats my concern too .. some delegates dont take it seriously enough

Ps: thanks for voting me in

[bdnoble]

Code: [Select]

>> wallet_account_transaction_history angel

RECEIVED            BLOCK     FROM                TO                  AMOUNT                  MEMO                                        BALANCE                 FEE                 ID     
=============================================================================================================================================================================================
2014-07-19T20:13:23 5999      founders            angel               0.00000 BTSX            register angel                              0.00000 BTSX            0.00000 BTSX        6dae8d9
2014-07-19T20:13:47 0         GENESIS             angel               58,783,758.26081 BTSX   claim PaNGELmZgzRQCKeEKM6ifgTqNkC4ceiAWw    58,783,758.26081 BTSX   0.00000 BTSX        VIRTUAL
2014-07-19T20:13:47 0         GENESIS             angel               6.44000 BTSX            claim PkC5oBxxY6gSrBEbxkjCLFQnzzqvAKZV1V    58,783,764.70081 BTSX   0.00000 BTSX        VIRTUAL
2014-07-19T20:13:47 0         GENESIS             angel               6.44200 BTSX            claim PdHvncH2w8A2mXobJVevaQcTLD1MUvob4R    58,783,771.14281 BTSX   0.00000 BTSX        VIRTUAL
2014-07-19T20:13:47 0         GENESIS             angel               6.44200 BTSX            claim PjadfkbV2EYCCR6VxTYMfscxcdebW63QTM    58,783,777.58481 BTSX   0.00000 BTSX        VIRTUAL
2014-07-19T20:15:17 6009      angel               angel               58,783,777.00000 BTSX   vote                                        58,783,777.48481 BTSX   0.10000 BTSX        b93b341
2014-07-21T13:17:09 19946     angel               angel               58,783,777.00000 BTSX   vote                                        58,783,777.48481 BTSX   0.10000 BTSX        cc9aa14
2014-07-21T14:16:30 20279     angel               angel               58,783,777.00000 BTSX   vote                                        58,783,777.48481 BTSX   0.10000 BTSX        1744b39

SWEET! I'M IN! Thank you for the opportunity!!!!!

[bytemaster]

I allowed a few more people in and unvoted some of the init delegates and the network fell to condition yellow.... with 85% participation rate. 

For the health of the network while it is still young having a strong core at is important.  Once we get back to condition green I will remove some more init delegates.

In the mean time we are working on many bug fixes.

[liondani]

How do you get rid of the initial delegates?

If it's about voting and disapproving of them, shouldn't it be easier than it has been?

We have a HUGE list of delegates trying to be the real deal, but somehow they are not able to get enough votes like myself.

I believe the fact that since there are still users with multiple delegates and all the initial delegates are still actively approved, delegation and community consensus is failing.  I was under the impression it would be more of a popularity contest not a deepest pockets contest. Yesterday it said the top delegate had over 4% approval. If I am interpreting this correctly, he has 80 million BTS backing him right? This roughly translates to over 1600 BTC in worth.  I am going to go out on a limb and say most people own 100,000 BTS or less like myself, around 2 BTC worth. It looks like the bottom delegate has near 1% approval.  So I have to find a really big fish or get 200 others like myself to vote me in to become a delegate at the bottom of the list. This is not the big problem, because who really cares if I can't become a delegate or someone like me.

The real problem is that the community consensus is to get rid of the initDelegates, yet there they are. Still producing blocks. The voice isn't as loud as the pockets are deep, and this is a problem that probably can't be solved.  This also can create a negative perception to the outsiders coming in.  Centralization issues.

As memorycoin proved, the community doesn't participate unless it will benefit the individual. While delegates can destroy fees, it is clear that the community doesn't care about that and shows me that the only voting participants are the ones who are trying to become delegates or are already a delegate.

We need 2 things to happen now; initial delegates need to be voted out and any person running multiple delegates need to be voted  out. This is all in the interest of decentralization.  I am not saying this to get votes. I clearly don't have enough weight to become a delegate (I thought I'd be campaigning for the House, but instead it's the Senate) and will likely pull the plug when I get home from work.

1.We must not vote out a person with multiple delegates but let only one delegate per person in... (But how do we know that ?)
2.We must vote for delegates they have low pay rates.
3.init delegate must unvote themselves and vote standby delegates and make big transfers to his own accounts ...
4.bytemaster must change things a little bit to give the opportunity to more people (not delegates! since all 101 active delegates could have one owner ) to participate on block production   (many discusions taken place in past, please reconsider ) https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=5317.msg70741#msg70741
5.Give motive to average users to vote even if they are not their self a delegate... this: Integrating betting using BTSX for votes... https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=5386.msg72235#msg72235

think about it, even we, the "insiders", now on the beginning, with the advantage of low fees (for creating delegates) and our forum reputation, have a very hard time to participate! What will happen in future with newcomers?
Nobody will even make a try to participate ... Centralization will come sooner then we think...

PS we have criticized NXT that they give the illusion to forgers that it is worth forging ... At least that Illusion makes people participating... When people see how hard it is to participate on BTSX block production what do you think will happen?

PS just spreading some "random" thoughts/ideas (good and bad) with the hope I give food for thoughts and maybe inspire  to help finding innovating, even totally different, solutions/ideas...

[bdnoble]

You have to understand that this early in the game many people who made long-term investments see no reason to bring their stake online and thus there is a lot of idle support.

It has always been the case that those with a lot of stake have a lot of influence, particularly if they are active.   Give it time, this isn't permanent centralization like you see with the other systems.   This network is growing more decentralized by the day.

Don't you have a large amount of stake? Who are you voting for? I have to imagine that your votes would make a difference in bumping some more people over the init delegates. Would you consider voting for me?

[bytemaster]

Code: [Select]

>> wallet_account_transaction_history angel

RECEIVED            BLOCK     FROM                TO                  AMOUNT                  MEMO                                        BALANCE                 FEE                 ID     
=============================================================================================================================================================================================
2014-07-19T20:13:23 5999      founders            angel               0.00000 BTSX            register angel                              0.00000 BTSX            0.00000 BTSX        6dae8d9
2014-07-19T20:13:47 0         GENESIS             angel               58,783,758.26081 BTSX   claim PaNGELmZgzRQCKeEKM6ifgTqNkC4ceiAWw    58,783,758.26081 BTSX   0.00000 BTSX        VIRTUAL
2014-07-19T20:13:47 0         GENESIS             angel               6.44000 BTSX            claim PkC5oBxxY6gSrBEbxkjCLFQnzzqvAKZV1V    58,783,764.70081 BTSX   0.00000 BTSX        VIRTUAL
2014-07-19T20:13:47 0         GENESIS             angel               6.44200 BTSX            claim PdHvncH2w8A2mXobJVevaQcTLD1MUvob4R    58,783,771.14281 BTSX   0.00000 BTSX        VIRTUAL
2014-07-19T20:13:47 0         GENESIS             angel               6.44200 BTSX            claim PjadfkbV2EYCCR6VxTYMfscxcdebW63QTM    58,783,777.58481 BTSX   0.00000 BTSX        VIRTUAL
2014-07-19T20:15:17 6009      angel               angel               58,783,777.00000 BTSX   vote                                        58,783,777.48481 BTSX   0.10000 BTSX        b93b341
2014-07-21T13:17:09 19946     angel               angel               58,783,777.00000 BTSX   vote                                        58,783,777.48481 BTSX   0.10000 BTSX        cc9aa14
2014-07-21T14:16:30 20279     angel               angel               58,783,777.00000 BTSX   vote                                        58,783,777.48481 BTSX   0.10000 BTSX        1744b39

[Ggozzo]

I understand that it is early. This is all the more reason for the push away from centralization needs to start now. People with multiple delegates need to reduce to one and DACsun. need to reduce down to one.

Unfortunately I don't see this happening. The prospect of huge returns is why we are all here and why those people won't let go.

Was my math right?

[bytemaster]

You have to understand that this early in the game many people who made long-term investments see no reason to bring their stake online and thus there is a lot of idle support.

It has always been the case that those with a lot of stake have a lot of influence, particularly if they are active.   Give it time, this isn't permanent centralization like you see with the other systems.   This network is growing more decentralized by the day.

[Ggozzo]

How do you get rid of the initial delegates?

If it's about voting and disapproving of them, shouldn't it be easier than it has been?

We have a HUGE list of delegates trying to be the real deal, but somehow they are not able to get enough votes like myself.

I believe the fact that since there are still users with multiple delegates and all the initial delegates are still actively approved, delegation and community consensus is failing.  I was under the impression it would be more of a popularity contest not a deepest pockets contest. Yesterday it said the top delegate had over 4% approval. If I am interpreting this correctly, he has 80 million BTS backing him right? This roughly translates to over 1600 BTC in worth.  I am going to go out on a limb and say most people own 100,000 BTS or less like myself, around 2 BTC worth. It looks like the bottom delegate has near 1% approval.  So I have to find a really big fish or get 200 others like myself to vote me in to become a delegate at the bottom of the list. This is not the big problem, because who really cares if I can't become a delegate or someone like me.

The real problem is that the community consensus is to get rid of the initDelegates, yet there they are. Still producing blocks. The voice isn't as loud as the pockets are deep, and this is a problem that probably can't be solved.  This also can create a negative perception to the outsiders coming in.  Centralization issues.

As memorycoin proved, the community doesn't participate unless it will benefit the individual. While delegates can destroy fees, it is clear that the community doesn't care about that and shows me that the only voting participants are the ones who are trying to become delegates or are already a delegate.

We need 2 things to happen now; initial delegates need to be voted out and any person running multiple delegates need to be voted  out. This is all in the interest of decentralization.  I am not saying this to get votes. I clearly don't have enough weight to become a delegate (I thought I'd be campaigning for the House, but instead it's the Senate) and will likely pull the plug when I get home from work.

[bitmeat]

That also might mean that you have that much less than before when you originally casted your vote.

[xeroc]

Example I tried to send a bunch of BTSX to my delegate to vote for itself and it caused it to subtract votes from previously voted for delegates.

That should equal the transaction fee!

[Riverhead]

I intend to vote for the most promising delegates other than init* tomorrow when I get a chance.  We need a very diversified group of delegates and the whales want that as well. 

The init delegates have no incentive to harm the network and have no extra power.   If you want them out then find a measly 3.9% of the shareholders to take care of it.

Right now the funds received from the PTS angel address are voting for many of the initial delegates, but also some of the other delegates.   I plan on using those funds to bring in more delegates tomorrow.

I also don't think shareholders are aware how the voting works. To my knowledge only amounts transferred really affect votes. Can you clarify?

Is there a good infographic about that? My experience showed that unless I transfer ALL my BTSX to myself - the vote count doesn't really matter.

So in other words when people do wallet_approve_delegate kpd-1 they don't really cast any reasonable size vote until they TRANSFER their shares (even if to themselves)

If you look at a transaction of a vote where you do a large transfer it takes away from others.  As if each BTSX in your wallet gets one vote.  Example I tried to send a bunch of BTSX to my delegate to vote for itself and it caused it to subtract votes from previously voted for delegates.

[puppies]

I intend to vote for the most promising delegates other than init* tomorrow when I get a chance.  We need a very diversified group of delegates and the whales want that as well. 

The init delegates have no incentive to harm the network and have no extra power.   If you want them out then find a measly 3.9% of the shareholders to take care of it.

Right now the funds received from the PTS angel address are voting for many of the initial delegates, but also some of the other delegates.   I plan on using those funds to bring in more delegates tomorrow.

I also don't think shareholders are aware how the voting works. To my knowledge only amounts transferred really affect votes. Can you clarify?

Is there a good infographic about that? My experience showed that unless I transfer ALL my BTSX to myself - the vote count doesn't really matter.

So in other words when people do wallet_approve_delegate kpd-1 they don't really cast any reasonable size vote until they TRANSFER their shares (even if to themselves)

Last I recall, you also only actually vote for a random subset of your upvoted delegates.  This was put in place to improve anonymity.

[bitmeat]

I intend to vote for the most promising delegates other than init* tomorrow when I get a chance.  We need a very diversified group of delegates and the whales want that as well. 

The init delegates have no incentive to harm the network and have no extra power.   If you want them out then find a measly 3.9% of the shareholders to take care of it.

Right now the funds received from the PTS angel address are voting for many of the initial delegates, but also some of the other delegates.   I plan on using those funds to bring in more delegates tomorrow.

I also don't think shareholders are aware how the voting works. To my knowledge only amounts transferred really affect votes. Can you clarify?

Is there a good infographic about that? My experience showed that unless I transfer ALL my BTSX to myself - the vote count doesn't really matter.

So in other words when people do wallet_approve_delegate kpd-1 they don't really cast any reasonable size vote until they TRANSFER their shares (even if to themselves)

[xeroc]

I intend to vote for the most promising delegates other than init* tomorrow when I get a chance.  We need a very diversified group of delegates and the whales want that as well. 

The init delegates have no incentive to harm the network and have no extra power.   If you want them out then find a measly 3.9% of the shareholders to take care of it.

Right now the funds received from the PTS angel address are voting for many of the initial delegates, but also some of the other delegates.   I plan on using those funds to bring in more delegates tomorrow.

Thanks, Dan. It's good to know.
Just for the peace of investors' mind, could you keep a record of the following?

• every transactions that the BTSX funds from PTS angel address has made
• list of voted delegates

It's part of BitShares Trust Fund, and deserves a proper audit book like this: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AqTwk-e7yzJydFZ3bVVWT0o1OUwzXzdESHFBY0FkUWc&usp=sharing#gid=0 .

[sfinder]

please vote for me

Please vote for chinese

BTS X  delegate ID：chinese

Why vote for "chinese"?

1） I am cooperating with China Education Bookstore and will donate 20% of income to the poor students in China.  Donation details will be posted for public view.

2）I will destroy 20% of the fees and  my pay rate is 80%. It is my way to pay dividends to all the bitshares holders.

vote for "chinese"
wallet_approve_delegate chinese true

my delegate's server: professional hosted 4Cores CPU + 4GB RAM + 100GB SSD + anti-DDoS +  guaranteed 500Mbps bandwidth

[bytemaster]

I intend to vote for the most promising delegates other than init* tomorrow when I get a chance.  We need a very diversified group of delegates and the whales want that as well. 

The init delegates have no incentive to harm the network and have no extra power.   If you want them out then find a measly 3.9% of the shareholders to take care of it.

Right now the funds received from the PTS angel address are voting for many of the initial delegates, but also some of the other delegates.   I plan on using those funds to bring in more delegates tomorrow.

[Simeon II]

I REALLY do not how to put this, but:

 Big stake-holder will, and should be, well represented. The fight, imho, should not be to remove them from there but rather to remove ‘other artificial barriers that keep their lawful/just representation above their stake and/or increases the benefits received by such representation above said levels’
Just my 0.2 Butsies.

[toast]

3I the company probably did not put those votes.
If by "3I" you mean one of the whale members (dan, stan, bo, greg, etc) then probably you are right.

Thanks for the reply, Toast.
By *3I the company* you mean the entity behind ELmZgzRQCKeEKM6ifgTqNkC4ceiAWw and those 61,000 PTS, right?
If so, shouldn't those BTSX derived from ELmZgzRQCKeEKM6ifgTqNkC4ceiAWw be publicly viewable, i.e., which BTSX address did ELmZgzRQCKeEKM6ifgTqNkC4ceiAWw get imported to?

In theory yes, but I'm not really motivated to find out... I do not think init* having a high % votes for the first while is a problem. Just wait until those funds start voting for real and then people will really start to complain.

[toast]

3I the company probably did not put those votes.
If by "3I" you mean one of the whale members (dan, stan, bo, greg, etc) then probably you are right.

[HackFisher]

They should go away naturally as real delegates get votes.

They have way too many votes to begin with. They should be gone as soon as there are enough real delegates.

True - They should have started with much lower votes.  Also, there should be more than 100 delegates.

They did start with very low votes, < 0.01%, but some share holders choose to approve them.

"some share holders"...I can hardly find any other party with 3.9% BTSX besides 3I:

• With the PTS AGS donation address (http://www1.agsexplorer.com/balances/PaNGELmZgzRQCKeEKM6ifgTqNkC4ceiAWw), 3I already holds 2.9% of BTSX.
• 3I claimed to have mined 61,000 PTS at the beginning, which can be easily converted to 1.9% of BTSX (assume that those 61,000 PTS didn't go to the AGS donation address)

So, conservatively, 3I holds at least 4.8% of all BTSX in circulation.
Can 3I prove that they didn't vote those init*** delegates using those 4.8% BTSX?

I guess It may be due to security reasons, give time to delegates to well prepared, not just rush in without good service.

I take it that you (HackFisher) has admitted that 3I is behind those 3.9% votes, but for *good* reasons.

Actually, I don't know anything about these votes, you should not put my guess and saying that I have admitted something.

[alt]

I guess It may be due to security reasons, give time to delegates to well prepared, not just rush in without good service.

we need more time

[HackFisher]

I guess It may be due to security reasons, give time to delegates to well prepared, not just rush in without good service.

Most delegates have already prepared during last 10 Dry runs.

From the point of free market, any shares holder can do what way they want, the reason for them to do that way is to protect and improve there share values, and that's the point of pos.
With approval voting, 3% is not high at all, most shareholders seems choose wait and watch which delegate are good guys and they want vote.

[bitcoinerS]

"some share holders"...I can hardly find any other party with 3.9% BTSX besides 3I:

There seems to be a strange concentration of votes currently, with a few whales and a bunch of init delegates with huge vote stakes taking up all of the active delegate list. I wonder what is going on.

[bitcoinerS]

I guess It may be due to security reasons, give time to delegates to well prepared, not just rush in without good service.

Most delegates have already prepared during last 10 Dry runs.

[HackFisher]

They should go away naturally as real delegates get votes.

They have way too many votes to begin with. They should be gone as soon as there are enough real delegates.

True - They should have started with much lower votes.  Also, there should be more than 100 delegates.

They did start with very low votes, < 0.01%, but some share holders choose to approve them.

"some share holders"...I can hardly find any other party with 3.9% BTSX besides 3I:

• With the PTS AGS donation address (http://www1.agsexplorer.com/balances/PaNGELmZgzRQCKeEKM6ifgTqNkC4ceiAWw), 3I already holds 2.9% of BTSX.
• 3I claimed to have mined 61,000 PTS at the beginning, which can be easily converted to 1.9% of BTSX (assume that those 61,000 PTS didn't go to the AGS donation address)

So, conservatively, 3I holds at least 4.8% of all BTSX in circulation.
Can 3I prove that they didn't vote those init*** delegates using those 4.8% BTSX?

I guess It may be due to security reasons, give time to delegates to well prepared, not just rush in without good service.

[Riverhead]

They did start with very low votes, < 0.01%, but some share holders choose to approve them.

Interesting.  I chalk it up to the Monopoly phase (it doesn't seem like real money).  Also, I guess they are trusted delegates.

[HackFisher]

They should go away naturally as real delegates get votes.

They have way too many votes to begin with. They should be gone as soon as there are enough real delegates.

True - They should have started with much lower votes.  Also, there should be more than 100 delegates.

They did start with very low votes, < 0.01%, but some share holders choose to approve them.

[liondani]

They should go away naturally as real delegates get votes.

They have way too many votes to begin with. They should be gone as soon as there are enough real delegates.

True - They should have started with much lower votes.  Also, there should be more than 100 delegates.

dynamic number of delegates with respect to average income ... not too rich not too poor...

[Riverhead]

They should go away naturally as real delegates get votes.

They have way too many votes to begin with. They should be gone as soon as there are enough real delegates.

True - They should have started with much lower votes.  Also, there should be more than 100 delegates.

[bitcoinerS]

They should go away naturally as real delegates get votes.

They have way too many votes to begin with. They should be gone as soon as there are enough real delegates.

[Riverhead]

They should go away naturally as real delegates get votes.

[bitcoinerS]

We need to "get rid off"/"vote out" init delegates as they are just clogging up active delegates list. Any ideas how? Ask DSL to unvote them?