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: Fair and Distributed Delegates  (Read 892 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline bitmeat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1116
    • View Profile
PROPOSAL: Fair and Distributed Delegates
« on: July 22, 2014, 03:21:32 PM »

These are assumptions, correct me if wrong. We have 101 slots reserved for elect delegates, rearranged every 101 blocks.

PROPOSAL:

Each batch of 101 blocks randomly assign 101 delegates based on certain total % (adjustable) of their total votes.

EXAMPLES:

A1-A10 have 20% of the votes (2% each)
B1-B20 have 20% of the votes (1% each)
C1-C40 have 20% of the votes (0.5% each)
D1-D100 have 20% of the votes (0.2% each)
E1-E1000 have 20% of the votes (0.02% each)

In our configuration each of the groups will technically have equal chance to get a delegate to "represent" them.

A typical example might be that each batch you could have a good distribution of delegates, should closely represent the following:

21 A (technically I only listed 10 delegates above)
20 B
20 C
20 D
20 E

This means that the delegates in the E section will have a very tiny chance of getting selected, but will have a very big chance of having a delegate picked out.

To Bytemaster, please consider this option. Otherwise whoever has the highest stake, dominates the delegate selection and nothing is stopping them from having 100% delegates even if they only have 20% of the BTSX.


---

IN SHORT:

We currently have 101 out of 101 elect delegates. Make elections every batch and pick 101 out of 1001, such that chance to get selected is proportional to vote count. Make the two numbers adjustable via proposals + shareholder voting.
« Last Edit: July 22, 2014, 03:25:14 PM by krabbypatty »

Offline emski

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1283
    • View Profile
    • http://lnkd.in/nPbhxG
Re: PROPOSAL: Fair and Distributed Delegates
« Reply #1 on: July 22, 2014, 03:24:51 PM »
I like the idea.
However there should be another variable missed/produced blocks ratio. It should penalise low-performing delegates.
And perhaps not all the seats should be random. Top 10 voted delegates should stay regardless.
« Last Edit: July 22, 2014, 03:29:13 PM by emski »

Offline bitmeat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1116
    • View Profile
Re: PROPOSAL: Fair and Distributed Delegates
« Reply #2 on: July 22, 2014, 03:25:58 PM »
Updated in red so proposal is more clear.

Offline bytemaster

Re: PROPOSAL: Fair and Distributed Delegates
« Reply #3 on: July 22, 2014, 03:30:41 PM »
In short you have not read the economics of the situation.  Your proposal costs 10x as much for the network to operate.
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 bitmeat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1116
    • View Profile
Re: PROPOSAL: Fair and Distributed Delegates
« Reply #4 on: July 22, 2014, 03:50:16 PM »
In short you have not read the economics of the situation.  Your proposal costs 10x as much for the network to operate.

Because 1001 delegates need to be running in case they get selected, instead of 101? How is that different at the moment, all the pending candidates are running a node anyways.

Offline bytemaster

Re: PROPOSAL: Fair and Distributed Delegates
« Reply #5 on: July 22, 2014, 05:24:04 PM »
In short you have not read the economics of the situation.  Your proposal costs 10x as much for the network to operate.

Because 1001 delegates need to be running in case they get selected, instead of 101? How is that different at the moment, all the pending candidates are running a node anyways.

Because once you are in you still need to break even.   In your bid to become a delegate you may have to front some costs, but if you don't get any traction you shut it down.  Under your system 1001 people need to be up at all times.
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 bitmeat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1116
    • View Profile
Re: PROPOSAL: Fair and Distributed Delegates
« Reply #6 on: July 22, 2014, 06:03:03 PM »
So implement online presence for delegates and only pick from the ones that are running.

Offline bitmeat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1116
    • View Profile
Re: PROPOSAL: Fair and Distributed Delegates
« Reply #7 on: July 22, 2014, 06:04:34 PM »
Also my proposal is for the numbers 101 and 1001 to be dynamically adjusted. You can start with 101/101 which is what you have right now

Offline bytemaster

Re: PROPOSAL: Fair and Distributed Delegates
« Reply #8 on: July 22, 2014, 06:17:36 PM »
Also my proposal is for the numbers 101 and 1001 to be dynamically adjusted. You can start with 101/101 which is what you have right now

That just means fees go up in the long-run...
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 bytemaster

Re: PROPOSAL: Fair and Distributed Delegates
« Reply #9 on: July 22, 2014, 06:18:03 PM »
So implement online presence for delegates and only pick from the ones that are running.

Not viable in a blockchain.
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 bitmeat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1116
    • View Profile
Re: PROPOSAL: Fair and Distributed Delegates
« Reply #10 on: July 22, 2014, 06:20:11 PM »
Sure it is

Offline bitmeat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1116
    • View Profile
PROPOSAL: Fair and Distributed Delegates
« Reply #11 on: July 22, 2014, 06:20:49 PM »
Delegate pays a fee which gets destroyed to toggle online presence or in fact set any attribute on their user.

Offline bytemaster

Re: PROPOSAL: Fair and Distributed Delegates
« Reply #12 on: July 22, 2014, 06:23:13 PM »
Delegate pays a fee which gets destroyed to toggle online presence or in fact set any attribute on their user.

Ok, I suppose there is that option, it would cost them something to maintain that status and they would have to earn it back when the produce a block which means everyone has to pay for it.
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 bitmeat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1116
    • View Profile
Re: PROPOSAL: Fair and Distributed Delegates
« Reply #13 on: July 22, 2014, 06:29:10 PM »
It's a flag that says "include me in the considered delegates" only needs to be switched when a delegate WANTS to be considered. Say my servers are down instead of missing blocks and screwing up my stats - like it happened to me I could turn myself off for awhile

Offline toast

Re: PROPOSAL: Fair and Distributed Delegates
« Reply #14 on: July 22, 2014, 06:40:57 PM »
It's a flag that says "include me in the considered delegates" only needs to be switched when a delegate WANTS to be considered. Say my servers are down instead of missing blocks and screwing up my stats - like it happened to me I could turn myself off for awhile

He has to come back online and validate all the blocks he missed and so his costs are the same. In the end the cost comes from validating transactions and not making 1 signature. A full validating node is a full validating node no matter how you amortize it
Do not use this post as information for making any important decisions. The only agreements I ever make are informal and non-binding. Take the same precautions as when dealing with a compromised account, scammer, sockpuppet, etc.

 

Google+