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: 5 people control about 1/3 of the delegates.  (Read 1871 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Ggozzo

  • Guest
5 people control about 1/3 of the delegates.
« on: July 21, 2014, 10:01:03 PM »

That isn't including any of the initial delegates. And there are still 26 of those. So 6 entities control well over half the delegates.

Maybe you guys want it that way?

This is not looking very decentralized.  Especially to any newcomers.

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile
Re: 5 people control about 1/3 of the delegates.
« Reply #1 on: July 21, 2014, 10:06:56 PM »
I would guess that it is probably quite a bit better than early participation by any novel POW chain.

It will get sorted out.  The guys who are willing to do sneaky things to get elected will be sussed out.  Some of have been to busy to pursue delegates at the moment.

Also the sneaky guys are likely to run multiple delegates at once.
I speak for myself and only myself.

Offline bytemaster

Re: 5 people control about 1/3 of the delegates.
« Reply #2 on: July 21, 2014, 10:07:53 PM »
That isn't including any of the initial delegates. And there are still 26 of those. So 6 entities control well over half the delegates.

Maybe you guys want it that way?

This is not looking very decentralized.  Especially to any newcomers.

We want 100 unique individuals, but obviously there are not 100 qualified candidates right now.  Show me a list with 101 unique individuals ready to operate nodes and I will vote for them all in a minute.

Right now the system is young and is already more decentralized that bitcoin & Ripple.

You are entirely too quick to judge.  Look at the DIRECTION it is moving and not where it is.  It started out 100% centralized... now you are complaining about 5 people with about 7% control each?   And then insinuate that we want centralization?  ::)

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 GaltReport

Re: 5 people control about 1/3 of the delegates.
« Reply #3 on: July 21, 2014, 10:11:02 PM »
That isn't including any of the initial delegates. And there are still 26 of those. So 6 entities control well over half the delegates.

Maybe you guys want it that way?

This is not looking very decentralized.  Especially to any newcomers.

We want 100 unique individuals, but obviously there are not 100 qualified candidates right now.  Show me a list with 101 unique individuals ready to operate nodes and I will vote for them all in a minute.

Right now the system is young and is already more decentralized that bitcoin & Ripple.

You are entirely too quick to judge.  Look at the DIRECTION it is moving and not where it is.  It started out 100% centralized... now you are complaining about 5 people with about 7% control each?   And then insinuate that we want centralization?  ::)

If I wanted to act as a delegate to support Bitshares X what are the basic steps I need to take?  Setup/maintain reliable server(s)?  register as a delegate?  ask for votes? something like that?  Do I need a certain amount of BTSX in my wallet or any other requirements like that?
« Last Edit: July 21, 2014, 10:15:14 PM by GaltReport »

Offline liondani

Re: 5 people control about 1/3 of the delegates.
« Reply #4 on: July 21, 2014, 10:29:32 PM »
That isn't including any of the initial delegates. And there are still 26 of those. So 6 entities control well over half the delegates.

Maybe you guys want it that way?

This is not looking very decentralized.  Especially to any newcomers.

We want 100 unique individuals, but obviously there are not 100 qualified candidates right now.  Show me a list with 101 unique individuals ready to operate nodes and I will vote for them all in a minute.

Right now the system is young and is already more decentralized that bitcoin & Ripple.

You are entirely too quick to judge.  Look at the DIRECTION it is moving and not where it is.  It started out 100% centralized... now you are complaining about 5 people with about 7% control each?   And then insinuate that we want centralization?  ::)

 +5%

Well said! Make absolute sense to me.
  https://bitshares.OPENLEDGER.info/?r=GREECE  | You are in Control | BUY | SELL | SHORT | SWAP | LOAN | TRADE |  

Ggozzo

  • Guest
Re: 5 people control about 1/3 of the delegates.
« Reply #5 on: July 21, 2014, 10:54:57 PM »
That isn't including any of the initial delegates. And there are still 26 of those. So 6 entities control well over half the delegates.

Maybe you guys want it that way?

This is not looking very decentralized.  Especially to any newcomers.

We want 100 unique individuals, but obviously there are not 100 qualified candidates right now.  Show me a list with 101 unique individuals ready to operate nodes and I will vote for them all in a minute.

Right now the system is young and is already more decentralized that bitcoin & Ripple.

You are entirely too quick to judge.  Look at the DIRECTION it is moving and not where it is.  It started out 100% centralized... now you are complaining about 5 people with about 7% control each?   And then insinuate that we want centralization?  ::)

Look, with 101 delegates, someone is always going to say "too centralized". Even if it were 101 unique individuals. All I am saying is that it is not helping promote a decentralized perception when you can look at the delegate list and see with 100% certainty that a few people control a majority of the network. You are probably right that it will smooth out more as time passes and BTer and other exchanges enable withdraws. I have quite a few BTS I have bought waiting for withdraw.

When I said "you guys", I wasn't referring to you as in I3 or DACSunlimited, I was talking to the voters. Participation is and will be the problem.  I'll shut up now.

Offline santaclause102

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2487
    • View Profile
Re: 5 people control about 1/3 of the delegates.
« Reply #6 on: July 21, 2014, 11:16:26 PM »
if it is easy for delegates to see who voted for them, why won't each voter gradually drift toward the delegates that give them the highest immediate cash in return, even off-chain? this seems like an existential threat to the system, it dampens the idea that DPOS will be a force of nature, and weakens the power of decentralization by vote.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=5868.msg78966#msg78966
POW has the same problem. We should ban "pay back delegates". It is not perfect but it works for Bitcoin. There are also no pay back mining pools.
I think it might not be a problem if all shareholders that vote are educated enough that such voting behaviour harms their assets / the network they own and that (probably by far) is a bigger loss on average than the tiny gains through paid back tx fees. That is how I think about it right now. But please feel free to discuss it! I tried to spark of a solid discussion there but no one really talks about it...

Offline AdamBLevine

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 492
    • View Profile
    • Let's Talk Bitcoin!
Re: 5 people control about 1/3 of the delegates.
« Reply #7 on: July 21, 2014, 11:19:23 PM »
I'm confused how I would run a delegate - I see I can register my ident, is it just as simple as doing that and then getting people to vote for me?

I think the tools are fine but the explanation for people who haven't followed every dry run are sorely lacking.  Once people understand how to be delegates or what it requires vs what its rewards are, we'll probably see less centralization.
Email me at [email protected]

Offline AdamBLevine

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 492
    • View Profile
    • Let's Talk Bitcoin!
Re: 5 people control about 1/3 of the delegates.
« Reply #8 on: July 21, 2014, 11:20:18 PM »
if it is easy for delegates to see who voted for them, why won't each voter gradually drift toward the delegates that give them the highest immediate cash in return, even off-chain? this seems like an existential threat to the system, it dampens the idea that DPOS will be a force of nature, and weakens the power of decentralization by vote.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=5868.msg78966#msg78966
POW has the same problem. We should ban "pay back delegates". It is not perfect but it works for Bitcoin. There are also no pay back mining pools.
I think it might not be a problem if all shareholders that vote are educated enough that such voting behaviour harms their assets / the network they own and that (probably by far) is a bigger loss on average than the tiny gains through paid back tx fees. That is how I think about it right now. But please feel free to discuss it! I tried to spark of a solid discussion there but no one really talks about it...

you should only ban what you can enforce.  Can you really enforce a no-pay?  Whats to stop people from paying for "marketing" and it goes to a mass sender going out to their secret backers?
Email me at [email protected]

Offline alt

Re: 5 people control about 1/3 of the delegates.
« Reply #9 on: July 21, 2014, 11:30:31 PM »
I'm confused how I would run a delegate - I see I can register my ident, is it just as simple as doing that and then getting people to vote for me?

I think the tools are fine but the explanation for people who haven't followed every dry run are sorely lacking.  Once people understand how to be delegates or what it requires vs what its rewards are, we'll probably see less centralization.
Rent a VPS server ->  build the client -> register a delegate account -> ask for vote -> generate block

You can set up a team to be the delegate.
just looking for a technology partner.  :)

Offline santaclause102

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2487
    • View Profile
Re: 5 people control about 1/3 of the delegates.
« Reply #10 on: July 21, 2014, 11:31:33 PM »
if it is easy for delegates to see who voted for them, why won't each voter gradually drift toward the delegates that give them the highest immediate cash in return, even off-chain? this seems like an existential threat to the system, it dampens the idea that DPOS will be a force of nature, and weakens the power of decentralization by vote.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=5868.msg78966#msg78966
POW has the same problem. We should ban "pay back delegates". It is not perfect but it works for Bitcoin. There are also no pay back mining pools.
I think it might not be a problem if all shareholders that vote are educated enough that such voting behaviour harms their assets / the network they own and that (probably by far) is a bigger loss on average than the tiny gains through paid back tx fees. That is how I think about it right now. But please feel free to discuss it! I tried to spark of a solid discussion there but no one really talks about it...

you should only ban what you can enforce.  Can you really enforce a no-pay?  Whats to stop people from paying for "marketing" and it goes to a mass sender going out to their secret backers?
If one delegate is beginning to prove his marketing efforts it will pressure the others to do the same.
I meant a "soft ban" = discussing it, educating people that the personal benefits for them are tiny but the potential harm to the network can be big which harms them a lot as they are shareholders. "Ban" is maybe not the right word. More something like a "social ban". This seems to be against crypto principles but the byzantine generals problems has not been solved by anyone in the space yet, not totally at least. POW, POS and DPOS all have the potential for centralization and it can not be avoided solely by technical means (up to now, lets see). 
« Last Edit: July 21, 2014, 11:34:29 PM by delulo »

merockstar

  • Guest
Re: 5 people control about 1/3 of the delegates.
« Reply #11 on: July 21, 2014, 11:32:05 PM »
I'm confused how I would run a delegate - I see I can register my ident, is it just as simple as doing that and then getting people to vote for me?

I think the tools are fine but the explanation for people who haven't followed every dry run are sorely lacking.  Once people understand how to be delegates or what it requires vs what its rewards are, we'll probably see less centralization.

agreed. I didn't realize there was such need for delegates. should I rent out a vps and (try) to get the code compiled for the sake of helping?

Offline maqifrnswa

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 661
    • View Profile
Re: 5 people control about 1/3 of the delegates.
« Reply #12 on: July 21, 2014, 11:35:40 PM »
if it is easy for delegates to see who voted for them, why won't each voter gradually drift toward the delegates that give them the highest immediate cash in return, even off-chain? this seems like an existential threat to the system, it dampens the idea that DPOS will be a force of nature, and weakens the power of decentralization by vote.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=5868.msg78966#msg78966
POW has the same problem. We should ban "pay back delegates". It is not perfect but it works for Bitcoin. There are also no pay back mining pools.
I think it might not be a problem if all shareholders that vote are educated enough that such voting behaviour harms their assets / the network they own and that (probably by far) is a bigger loss on average than the tiny gains through paid back tx fees. That is how I think about it right now. But please feel free to discuss it! I tried to spark of a solid discussion there but no one really talks about it...

I see no problem with pay back. It essentially is the equivalent of a group of people electing one person to to represent them as a delegate.

Isn't pay back the equivalent of a mining pool? people are too small to be a delegate on their own so they pitch in their votes to get a shared delegate spot.
maintains an Ubuntu PPA: https://launchpad.net/~showard314/+archive/ubuntu/bitshares [15% delegate] wallet_account_set_approval maqifrnswa true [50% delegate] wallet_account_set_approval delegate1.maqifrnswa true

Offline maqifrnswa

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 661
    • View Profile
Re: 5 people control about 1/3 of the delegates.
« Reply #13 on: July 21, 2014, 11:42:49 PM »
I'm confused how I would run a delegate - I see I can register my ident, is it just as simple as doing that and then getting people to vote for me?

I think the tools are fine but the explanation for people who haven't followed every dry run are sorely lacking.  Once people understand how to be delegates or what it requires vs what its rewards are, we'll probably see less centralization.

agreed. I didn't realize there was such need for delegates. should I rent out a vps and (try) to get the code compiled for the sake of helping?

there is a need for delegates, ideally they would be 101 individuals with standing and technical experience in the community trusted to (1) not screw the system and (2) maintain/pay for their node.

to do it see:
https://github.com/BitShares/bitshares_toolkit/wiki/DPOS-initial-delegate-setup

To be a delegate you just need to:
1) pay to be a delegate (set up an account, give it some BTS, register the account, register the account as a delegate)
2) set "wallet_enable_delegate_block_production $ACCOUNT true"
3) UNLOCK YOUR WALLET and keep it unlocked!!!! set a long time out (that was my mistake at first)
4) somewhat optional, but nice to do:
network_set_advanced_node_parameters {"desired_number_of_connections":50, "maximum_number_of_connections":200}

benefits: you get a share of the transaction fees (pay_rate*10/101*transaction_fees_per_day)
costs: maintaining a vps, having to be on top of things

in theory, you should campaign and be well known. In practice, for now, it is dominated by the big accounts giving themselves a large number of delegate spots.
maintains an Ubuntu PPA: https://launchpad.net/~showard314/+archive/ubuntu/bitshares [15% delegate] wallet_account_set_approval maqifrnswa true [50% delegate] wallet_account_set_approval delegate1.maqifrnswa true

Offline AdamBLevine

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 492
    • View Profile
    • Let's Talk Bitcoin!
Re: 5 people control about 1/3 of the delegates.
« Reply #14 on: July 21, 2014, 11:43:03 PM »
if it is easy for delegates to see who voted for them, why won't each voter gradually drift toward the delegates that give them the highest immediate cash in return, even off-chain? this seems like an existential threat to the system, it dampens the idea that DPOS will be a force of nature, and weakens the power of decentralization by vote.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=5868.msg78966#msg78966
POW has the same problem. We should ban "pay back delegates". It is not perfect but it works for Bitcoin. There are also no pay back mining pools.
I think it might not be a problem if all shareholders that vote are educated enough that such voting behaviour harms their assets / the network they own and that (probably by far) is a bigger loss on average than the tiny gains through paid back tx fees. That is how I think about it right now. But please feel free to discuss it! I tried to spark of a solid discussion there but no one really talks about it...

you should only ban what you can enforce.  Can you really enforce a no-pay?  Whats to stop people from paying for "marketing" and it goes to a mass sender going out to their secret backers?
If one delegate is beginning to prove his marketing efforts it will pressure the others to do the same.
I meant a "soft ban" = discussing it, educating people that the personal benefits for them are tiny but the potential harm to the network can be big which harms them a lot as they are shareholders. "Ban" is maybe not the right word. More something like a "social ban". This seems to be against crypto principles but the byzantine generals problems has not been solved by anyone in the space yet. POW, POS and DPOS all have the potential for centralization and it can not be avoided solely by technical means (up to now, lets see).

The problem with a "social ban" is you leave the option to pay for votes only to users already willing to ignore the social norms.  So you take away the quite useful tool of compensating your supporters from those who are willing to follow your rules, which makes it harder for "good" actors to succeed.

So again, I'd really discourage the "banning" of tactics that are actually able to be banned, and don't rely on people following rules.  Good people will follow rules to their detriment, bad people will ignore the rules because nothing makes them stop and they'll have an easier time onboarding support because they have a tool in their arsenal those following the rules do not.


Email me at [email protected]

 

Google+