Author Topic: PROPOSAL: Fair and Distributed Delegates  (Read 6542 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline bdnoble

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 116
    • View Profile
    • Home Page
Automatically setting up initial votes is good but really only if the votes automatically change. Because a bad delegate could get in early and then a bunch of new people keep voting them in without realizing it. But with both of those it would be really good.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
:)

Offline liondani

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3737
  • Inch by inch, play by play
    • View Profile
    • My detailed info
  • BitShares: liondani
  • GitHub: liondani
Quote
Right now if I have 6% of BTSX I could kick everybody else out.
...because not many are voting yet.

does it make sense that every new account/user  will automaticaly vote by default 101 delegates with specific characteristics (like highest delegate reliability for last x blocks produced), until of course he decides to start manual voting and change the default votes ?

Offline bdnoble

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 116
    • View Profile
    • Home Page
Bytemaster himself actually suggested as much. This is probably the best solution I've heard yet. We just have to get people voting and the big fish problem will be largely gone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
:)

Offline santaclause102

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2486
    • View Profile
Do we actually know what the distribution of BTS X is?
And could there be an incentive for shareholders to vote? Less tx fees for shareholders that vote?

This is the best thing I heard so far. I would even go as far as say dormant accounts, should experience burn of 5%/year. And one way to not be dormant is to vote.
Not sure I saw more or less that suggested somewhere else :)
« Last Edit: July 23, 2014, 04:16:38 am by delulo »

Offline bitmeat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1116
    • View Profile
Do we actually know what the distribution of BTS X is?
And could there be an incentive for shareholders to vote? Less tx fees for shareholders that vote?

This is the best thing I heard so far. I would even go as far as say dormant accounts, should experience burn of 5%/year. And one way to not be dormant is to vote.

Offline santaclause102

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2486
    • View Profile
You are assuming that the rest 70% will actually manage to select and vote for the SAME 101 delegates, enough to push big fish out.

Right now if I have 6% of BTSX I could kick everybody else out. That's about 2,000 BTC or $1.2M. Even a medium size fish could pull that off :)

Luckily there is no withdrawals yet at BTER and BTC38.
Quote
You are assuming that the rest 70% will actually manage to select and vote for the SAME 101 delegates, enough to push big fish out.
Right, but the 30% fish is also a bit much :)
It is based on the assumptions I made initially....

Quote
Right now if I have 6% of BTSX I could kick everybody else out.
...because not many are voting yet.

Do we actually know what the distribution of BTS X is?
And could there be an incentive for shareholders to vote? Less tx fees for shareholders that vote?
« Last Edit: July 23, 2014, 03:46:29 am by delulo »

Offline bitmeat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1116
    • View Profile
You are assuming that the rest 70% will actually manage to select and vote for the SAME 101 delegates, enough to push big fish out.

Right now if I have 6% of BTSX I could kick everybody else out. That's about 2,000 BTC or $1.2M. Even a medium size fish could pull that off :)

Luckily there is no withdrawals yet at BTER and BTC38.

Offline santaclause102

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2486
    • View Profile
Under the situation I supposed
Quote
...assumptions: big fish voted with his full stake for his delegates; and the rest that voted did not vote for big fish's delegates...
+ the assumption that all shareholders voted and given your 30/70 stake distribution...
votes would be:
big fish's 1-101 delegates: 30 % each
some other 101 delegates: 70% each

So big fish's delegates would not be in the top 101.

The assumption that all shareholders vote is a bit extreme. Therefore I proposed that it would be enough if more than the 10% you suggested for the big fish in the first place of the distributed shareholders vote and would vote all not for the big fish's delegate. The latter I think is not unrealistic if they know the percentages + know that decentralization is crucial.

Quote
I'm sure Dan and team will come up with a good solution, it's good that we put the ideas out in the open. I'm focusing on making a delegate statistics tool, so we can speak in numbers.
+5%
« Last Edit: July 23, 2014, 03:38:18 am by delulo »

Offline bitmeat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1116
    • View Profile
I'm sure Dan and team will come up with a good solution, it's good that we put the ideas out in the open. I'm focusing on making a delegate statistics tool, so we can speak in numbers.

And to answer your question:

SHARES:
30% BTSX Monopoly Big Fish
70% BTSX Smaller guys

VOTES:
30% Big Fish - votes for 101 positions
next in line - even thought they have high % votes, they are fragmented, so none make it to the top. You get 30% to control 100%
28%
23%
15%
15%

(And I think this was Dan's consideration for having negative votes, he gives a similar example there)

Let's give it more time to evole, I was being reactive. After I build the tool voters will have more visibility and will make voting an easier decision for them.

Offline santaclause102

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2486
    • View Profile
Even if all the rest of 90% vote, unless they all vote for the same small guys, they will not kick out the big fish.
that assumes that they would all also vote for the big fish's delegate. Is that realistic?
The conclusion is again that shareholder education / information (decentralized is vital) and and norms are important for an open consensus network to stay decentralized!

Offline bitmeat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1116
    • View Profile
Even if all the rest of 90% vote, unless they all vote for the same small guys, they will not kick out the big fish.

Offline santaclause102

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2486
    • View Profile
I want to avoid the scenario where one big fish of 10% in BTSX could have 100% of the delegates and declare monopoly! Which has kinda been happening.
do we agree that this would only happen if at least 80% didnt vote (assumptions: big fish voted with his full stake for his delegates; and the rest that voted did not vote for big fish's delegates) at all?

Offline liondani

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3737
  • Inch by inch, play by play
    • View Profile
    • My detailed info
  • BitShares: liondani
  • GitHub: liondani
I want to avoid the scenario where one big fish of 10% in BTSX could have 100% of the delegates and declare monopoly! Which has kinda been happening.

krabbypatty please see this links and comment on my thoughts  ;)

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=5569.msg74886#msg74886
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=4009.msg59537#msg59537
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=5317.0

Offline bitmeat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1116
    • View Profile
I want to avoid the scenario where one big fish of 10% in BTSX could have 100% of the delegates and declare monopoly! Which has kinda been happening.

Offline bitmeat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1116
    • View Profile
You are misinterpreting my words. Reliability is currently all time. We could find a good measure. 24hr/last hour etc. there are still 101 slots not 10000.

It couldn't be worse than before if he's been missing 20%, might as well give that chance to somebody else.