Author Topic: Delegates are honorary positions, not for financial interest!  (Read 11539 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Riverhead

A max of 50. 1.5 is the starting wage and they need to campaign for it if they want more.

Also fees are burnt. It could be the case that more is burnt than minted.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

Offline Method-X

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1131
  • VIRAL
    • View Profile
    • Learn to code
  • BitShares: methodx
There's nothing wrong with delegates being paid for their services .

There's a mechanism in place for this which is fees.

The problem is delegates creating money out of thing air - eg. dilution. Dilution/inflation has been the death currencies since Roman times.

An individual delegate can make a maximum of 50 BTS per block. They can't print money on demand.

julian1

  • Guest
There's nothing wrong with delegates being paid for their services .

There's a mechanism in place for this which is fees.

The problem is delegates creating money out of thing air - eg. dilution. Dilution/inflation has been the death currencies since Roman times.

Offline alphaBar

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 321
    • View Profile
Joke!!!   who voted for the merging?  how many shakeholders did vote?  we dont know at all!  Maybe one among you registers a lot of accounts here!  Many Chinese shakeholders do not come here at all!  do you think it is the veritable consensus?

There was no need to vote for the proposal because of the giant selloff that happened when BM proposed it. That clearly indicated that the market took his proposal as being fully accepted by the majority already. The majority of those who are against it have already voted with their feet and are out of the market. If you think this is wrong, and that a majority of stakeholders still oppose it, then the burden of proof is on you to get 51 anti-merger delegates who will reject BM's hardfork when it comes. That is the only way you can prevent the merger from happening - everything else you do is completely futile and a waste of time.

Truth is, the merger and paid delegates are a huge advantage, bigger than anything else BTSX had, and anyone who understands how to run a company will agree with this. The whales who disagree have sold off, and the whales who are left stand behind it.

Yet another fallacy by the "all or nothing" crowd. Let's dissect this comment for a second:

1) You claim that a BTSX selloff actually means majority acceptance because those who disagree have divested? So by this logic we don't need to implement VOTE. Let's just tell Dan to propose something, and if the market tanks we can assume that shareholders love it! I suggest you rethink this one... Ok, I'll just spell it out for you: (i) Most people who believe dilution is not the best course of action would not divest entirely or withdraw from the community as a result, (ii) the dilution proposal should not be viewed as a foregone conclusion, and (iii) even if a small percentage of "anti-dilution" people divested, we could still be a large majority.

2) Sorry but just saying "the burden is on you" to reject a hard fork against BM because of your flawed assumption in point #1 is also absurd. Regardless of what he is proposing (unless it is outright insane), BM will get his way. The sad reality is that the exchanges control the outcome by deciding which branch to list or de-list, and they will usually follow BM's decision.

I think most people here are engaging in constructive dialogue, and what you're doing is really the most harmful thing that can be done to a community built around the concept of distributed consensus. Think about the irony in that...

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12922
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
There was no need to vote for the proposal because of the giant selloff that happened when BM proposed it. That clearly indicated that the market took his proposal as being fully accepted by the majority already. The majority of those who are against it have already voted with their feet and are out of the market. If you think this is wrong, and that a majority of stakeholders still oppose it, then the burden of proof is on you to get 51 anti-merger delegates who will reject BM's hardfork when it comes. That is the only way you can prevent the merger from happening - everything else you do is completely futile and a waste of time.

Truth is, the merger and paid delegates are a huge advantage, bigger than anything else BTSX had, and anyone who understands how to run a company will agree with this. The whales who disagree have sold off, and the whales who are left stand behind it.
+5%

Offline Rune

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1120
    • View Profile
Joke!!!   who voted for the merging?  how many shakeholders did vote?  we dont know at all!  Maybe one among you registers a lot of accounts here!  Many Chinese shakeholders do not come here at all!  do you think it is the veritable consensus?

There was no need to vote for the proposal because of the giant selloff that happened when BM proposed it. That clearly indicated that the market took his proposal as being fully accepted by the majority already. The majority of those who are against it have already voted with their feet and are out of the market. If you think this is wrong, and that a majority of stakeholders still oppose it, then the burden of proof is on you to get 51 anti-merger delegates who will reject BM's hardfork when it comes. That is the only way you can prevent the merger from happening - everything else you do is completely futile and a waste of time.

Truth is, the merger and paid delegates are a huge advantage, bigger than anything else BTSX had, and anyone who understands how to run a company will agree with this. The whales who disagree have sold off, and the whales who are left stand behind it.

Offline Felix

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 87
    • View Profile
Btsx system is still far from robustness and now delegates like you begin to attempt to eat the fortune of btsx system step by step! All the distribution of interests should have been in the original consensus. I don't understand why you didn't raise this point originally. But anyway, if you think you couldn't be qualified for the delegate role, you can give it up. I think many candidates are very willing to take over your position!

I think if we're using the company metaphor, it's probably a good idea to pay delegates who offer valuable services. Riverhead certainly qualifies for that. Free is only going to motivate the absolute die hards with too much time on their hands. Even Bitcoin has a hard time finding developers who can work on it full time. So far it only seems to be independently wealthy developers + Gavin who's being paid 200k / year by the foundation. Top companies attract top talent with high pay and a compelling company philosophy. That said, it might be best to operate at a loss in the early days but that shouldn't be where we end up a year from now.

I really enjoy your compelling company philosophy.  But again, is there all such distributions of interests in the original consensus?  No! He should have made that point one year ago!Do you think he is not capable of   predicting it? If he is incapable, you think he is qualified for the delegate role?  I dont think so! So  I deeply doubt his dubious motivation!

Consensus can change at any time. The only real authority in the system are the stakeholders and their elected delegates. If you think you can mobilize more than half of actively voting stakeholders to prevent the BTS merger and the implementation of delegate dilution, then go ahead and do so - you will be able to prevent dilution from happening. Any arguments to authority or prior promises are meaningless because the only thing that matters (as you correctly put it) is consensus. But it's not the past consensus, it's the consensus of the present.
Joke!!!   who voted for the merging?  how many shakeholders did vote?  we dont know at all!  Maybe one among you registers a lot of accounts here!  Many Chinese shakeholders do not come here at all!  do you think it is the veritable consensus?   

Offline fuzzy

Btsx system is still far from robustness and now delegates like you begin to attempt to eat the fortune of btsx system step by step! All the distribution of interests should have been in the original consensus. I don't understand why you didn't raise this point originally. But anyway, if you think you couldn't be qualified for the delegate role, you can give it up. I think many candidates are very willing to take over your position!

I think if we're using the company metaphor, it's probably a good idea to pay delegates who offer valuable services. Riverhead certainly qualifies for that. Free is only going to motivate the absolute die hards with too much time on their hands. Even Bitcoin has a hard time finding developers who can work on it full time. So far it only seems to be independently wealthy developers + Gavin who's being paid 200k / year by the foundation. Top companies attract top talent with high pay and a compelling company philosophy. That said, it might be best to operate at a loss in the early days but that shouldn't be where we end up a year from now.

I really enjoy your compelling company philosophy.  But again, is there all such distributions of interests in the original consensus?  No! He should have made that point one year ago!Do you think he is not capable of   predicting it? If he is incapable, you think he is qualified for the delegate role?  I dont think so! So  I deeply doubt his dubious motivation!

Consensus can change at any time. The only real authority in the system are the stakeholders and their elected delegates. If you think you can mobilize more than half of actively voting stakeholders to prevent the BTS merger and the implementation of delegate dilution, then go ahead and do so - you will be able to prevent dilution from happening. Any arguments to authority or prior promises are meaningless because the only thing that matters (as you correctly put it) is consensus. But it's not the past consensus, it's the consensus of the present.

 +5%
WhaleShares==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits and WhaleShares = Love :D

Offline Rune

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1120
    • View Profile
Btsx system is still far from robustness and now delegates like you begin to attempt to eat the fortune of btsx system step by step! All the distribution of interests should have been in the original consensus. I don't understand why you didn't raise this point originally. But anyway, if you think you couldn't be qualified for the delegate role, you can give it up. I think many candidates are very willing to take over your position!

I think if we're using the company metaphor, it's probably a good idea to pay delegates who offer valuable services. Riverhead certainly qualifies for that. Free is only going to motivate the absolute die hards with too much time on their hands. Even Bitcoin has a hard time finding developers who can work on it full time. So far it only seems to be independently wealthy developers + Gavin who's being paid 200k / year by the foundation. Top companies attract top talent with high pay and a compelling company philosophy. That said, it might be best to operate at a loss in the early days but that shouldn't be where we end up a year from now.

I really enjoy your compelling company philosophy.  But again, is there all such distributions of interests in the original consensus?  No! He should have made that point one year ago!Do you think he is not capable of   predicting it? If he is incapable, you think he is qualified for the delegate role?  I dont think so! So  I deeply doubt his dubious motivation!

Consensus can change at any time. The only real authority in the system are the stakeholders and their elected delegates. If you think you can mobilize more than half of actively voting stakeholders to prevent the BTS merger and the implementation of delegate dilution, then go ahead and do so - you will be able to prevent dilution from happening. Any arguments to authority or prior promises are meaningless because the only thing that matters (as you correctly put it) is consensus. But it's not the past consensus, it's the consensus of the present.

Offline Riverhead

So  I deeply doubt his dubious motivation!

Noted. I'm not a politician and have no desire to be one so I'm not going to spend any more time trying to make you understand why I can't work for free. I'll do what I can to use the skills I've accumulated over the years to provide IT services to the blockchain and its users. If they feel I'm doing a poor job or am overpaid for the job I'm doing they'll vote me out. That's how the system is designed to work and I'm perfectly fine with that.
« Last Edit: November 03, 2014, 02:52:10 pm by Riverhead »

Offline Felix

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 87
    • View Profile
Btsx system is still far from robustness and now delegates like you begin to attempt to eat the fortune of btsx system step by step! All the distribution of interests should have been in the original consensus. I don't understand why you didn't raise this point originally. But anyway, if you think you couldn't be qualified for the delegate role, you can give it up. I think many candidates are very willing to take over your position!

I think if we're using the company metaphor, it's probably a good idea to pay delegates who offer valuable services. Riverhead certainly qualifies for that. Free is only going to motivate the absolute die hards with too much time on their hands. Even Bitcoin has a hard time finding developers who can work on it full time. So far it only seems to be independently wealthy developers + Gavin who's being paid 200k / year by the foundation. Top companies attract top talent with high pay and a compelling company philosophy. That said, it might be best to operate at a loss in the early days but that shouldn't be where we end up a year from now.

I really enjoy your compelling company philosophy.  But again, is there all such distributions of interests in the original consensus?  No! He should have made that point one year ago!Do you think he is not capable of   predicting it? If he is incapable, you think he is qualified for the delegate role?  I dont think so! So  I deeply doubt his dubious motivation!

Offline fuzzy

Have you done the math? My current remuneration for the hours I've spent maintaining a delegate: frequent releases, vps costs and setup, helping other delegates get up and running, maintaining price feeds, etc. Has so far been around $2 a month. At one point during the high price days I almost cleared $4 a month.

If that is greedy than I'm not sure what to say.

Keep in mind this is all open source. If you feel this strongly you can clone the project and make your own DAC with no dilution. The hard part will be finding the staff that'll work for transaction fees.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

If you think you have a big loss as delegate, please give up the delegate position!Ok?I will serve btsx holders for free!
In nature, you donot take the delegate as the honorary role!

Nothing is more dangerous than someone in a financial system who has great power claiming that "he does not need money , just serve the people ".

Because a pure good person like that would have go to the third world country and help the poor people already instead of playing a major role in a financial system .
What you said is nonsense!一派胡言

Well, you can't be everything to everyone. In your world people work for free for the benefit of everyone. In my world I either pay my mortgage or the bank takes my house.

Gotta play the hand I'm dealt.

can sympathize with you there...

even crazy idealists feel the pain for their incorrect assumptions.  trust me felix...i should know. 

the question to ask here is: are people securing the network valuable enough to enjoy a little bit of financial certainty?  trust me...running on tips gets you almost nowhere...

people who can run delegates are very valuable. 

with that said, would you be interested in helping me with a project?  i need a step by step video series on how to set up, secure and run a delegate.  it will increase competition, which will lower fees over time and help alt-chains that want to compete have a better chance of doing so! THAT is honorable if you ask me!

pm me if interested and ill hook you up. ill also put your free (or even paid) delegate on the bbx delegate slate.
« Last Edit: November 03, 2014, 02:07:34 pm by fuzzy »
WhaleShares==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits and WhaleShares = Love :D

Offline Riverhead

I agree, BTS(X) is very young and cannot be taken advantage of if it's to survive. A couple points to consider:

1) Once a delegate's pay is set it cannot be raised
2) As BTS(X) gains momentum, stabilizes, and grows the amount of time/expense a delegate (especially an IT delegate) needs to invest grows as well.

There are a number of time sinks to running a delegate that a non delegate may not consider. For example this forum. As a non delegate you are free to spend every hour of every day on the forum or just try to catch up on the main topics with your morning coffee on the weekends. As a delegate, especially an IT delegate, nearly every post needs to be read every day. This is a huge time sink (just ask Stan and BM how much time they spend reading threads).

Also while BTS(X) is in its infancy my 5% payrate is bringing in about $4/month. That money is meaningless to me. However, in (1) above this rate cannot be raised. The idea is (or was before the "proposal) that the 5% revenue would grow with the system to account for the increased time and infrastructure required to maintain the network. When BTS(X) gets up to 10,000 transactions a second do you really think a $20/m VPS server is going to cut it? Mostly likely not. To have safe fail-overs, chain servers, seen nodes, etc. we're talking about at least a dozen VPS servers at $500+/month. Working for the people is great but I can't shell out $6k/month "for the people".

So, you are correct, right now I should be working for free. I would argue that $2 - $4 month is working for free. If there was the ability to increase delegate pay I would happily be a 0% pay candidate right now, and for as long as my out-of-pocket expenses were under few hundred dollars a month. However it is not the case that I can go from 0% to 5% once the system has grown to require a deeper infrastructure. Sure, I could campaign a new delegate but what's the point? The network will need the infrastructure to grow with the network. A percentage based pay allows this to happen. Otherwise you're asking a delegate to lay out a large amount of capital on the hopes they may get elected to the 101. Who is going to do that?

Anyway, this is a moot discussion. The shareholders decide who the delegates are. I have stated my case and you have stated yours. The people will decide which type of candidate they want. I suspect most understand you get what you pay for.

Offline Method-X

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1131
  • VIRAL
    • View Profile
    • Learn to code
  • BitShares: methodx
Btsx system is still far from robustness and now delegates like you begin to attempt to eat the fortune of btsx system step by step! All the distribution of interests should have been in the original consensus. I don't understand why you didn't raise this point originally. But anyway, if you think you couldn't be qualified for the delegate role, you can give it up. I think many candidates are very willing to take over your position!

I think if we're using the company metaphor, it's probably a good idea to pay delegates who offer valuable services. Riverhead certainly qualifies for that. Free is only going to motivate the absolute die hards with too much time on their hands. Even Bitcoin has a hard time finding developers who can work on it full time. So far it only seems to be independently wealthy developers + Gavin who's being paid 200k / year by the foundation. Top companies attract top talent with high pay and a compelling company philosophy. That said, it might be best to operate at a loss in the early days but that shouldn't be where we end up a year from now.

Offline Felix

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 87
    • View Profile
Have you done the math? My current remuneration for the hours I've spent maintaining a delegate: frequent releases, vps costs and setup, helping other delegates get up and running, maintaining price feeds, etc. Has so far been around $2 a month. At one point during the high price days I almost cleared $4 a month.

If that is greedy than I'm not sure what to say.

Keep in mind this is all open source. If you feel this strongly you can clone the project and make your own DAC with no dilution. The hard part will be finding the staff that'll work for transaction fees.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

If you think you have a big loss as delegate, please give up the delegate position!Ok?I will serve btsx holders for free!
In nature, you donot take the delegate as the honorary role!

Nothing is more dangerous than someone in a financial system who has great power claiming that "he does not need money , just serve the people ".

Because a pure good person like that would have go to the third world country and help the poor people already instead of playing a major role in a financial system .
What you said is nonsense!一派胡言

Well, you can't be everything to everyone. In your world people work for free for the benefit of everyone. In my world I either pay my mortgage or the bank takes my house.

Gotta play the hand I'm dealt.

Btsx system is still far from robustness and now delegates like you begin to attempt to eat the fortune of btsx system step by step! All the distribution of interests should have been in the original consensus. I don't understand why you didn't raise this point originally. But anyway, if you think you couldn't be qualified for the delegate role, you can give it up. I think many candidates are very willing to take over your position!