0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: bytemaster on June 19, 2014, 02:04:59 pmThe primary thing we are trying to avoid is giving the initial delegates undo advantage of votes from those who lost their keys, donated from an exchange, or are too lazy to get involved. For this reason starting all votes as 'negative' votes means that the real names with real votes will get in priority over those we assign. It also removes any accusations of bias in initial delegate selection. Changing the name to be 'unelected-your-name-x' allows people to see your performance and thus vote for 'your-name-x'. We could give you just 'your-name-x' but if we start you out with negative votes from passive users it may end up poorly for you.I think your doing the right thing. This sounds good. I was concerned that we would be competing with ourselves to get a real name in to a spot but with the negative votes, as you've explained, clears this up. Thank you. Will a new delegate with 0 votes push out an init-delegate with negative votes?
The primary thing we are trying to avoid is giving the initial delegates undo advantage of votes from those who lost their keys, donated from an exchange, or are too lazy to get involved. For this reason starting all votes as 'negative' votes means that the real names with real votes will get in priority over those we assign. It also removes any accusations of bias in initial delegate selection. Changing the name to be 'unelected-your-name-x' allows people to see your performance and thus vote for 'your-name-x'. We could give you just 'your-name-x' but if we start you out with negative votes from passive users it may end up poorly for you.
This sounds like a good idea. I'd modify it in that after shares start paying inactivity fees they should no longer vote, which means we need a no-vote state anyway, instead of generating fake delegates to sink votes.
Quote from: emski on June 19, 2014, 03:37:14 amQuote from: bytemaster on June 18, 2014, 11:22:14 pmWe will probably say something like "unelected-yourusername-xx"Well that is what i didnt like in the first place.What is the reasoning in this?Why not leave the names as is? They have low votes and the stake decides what should happen?You have enough stake to do whatever you want anyway.... at least in the beginning.Yes I don't see the difference. If everyone has to create another delegate anyway just leave the names as they are. init-delegate or uneletected, same thing. The point of picking a name was to avoid the mess of everyone needing to recreate another delegate and compete with themselves for a spot, but it seems we will have to do this anyway. I say just leave it.
Quote from: bytemaster on June 18, 2014, 11:22:14 pmWe will probably say something like "unelected-yourusername-xx"Well that is what i didnt like in the first place.What is the reasoning in this?Why not leave the names as is? They have low votes and the stake decides what should happen?You have enough stake to do whatever you want anyway.... at least in the beginning.
We will probably say something like "unelected-yourusername-xx"
Same as betax I did not arrive home in time to be part of the previous delegate batch and have been running a highly connected node instead, but if possible could you add these:Code: [Select]joeyd-d1: XTS7xm5K6cVv8y7dowzjTBLTwWBXQDVvKHsU3a5qDhcUSwvcwjV4ujoeyd-d2: XTS549hCkKyf4UM7rNEeF7Q83CBYdetx3smujtX2FazXTDoWnyuDWjoeyd-d3: XTS5iaa34ikXpLArVrk7wjSEwjpU9fUCznW3bSynuYGtm6xvT2Xdpjoeyd-d4: XTS5a5SrAWoXzUvDmtL4CZcYYLwSkJJk3ch2a9RNzDNERCogZZPY4joeyd-d5: XTS671QbNrgCy945UDPRmDPf3ARQaP6vHBXAH25mt1oB5QRsrwaLSBtw, is it possible to use a different datadir for the client apart from the usual .Bitshares\ XTS one?
joeyd-d1: XTS7xm5K6cVv8y7dowzjTBLTwWBXQDVvKHsU3a5qDhcUSwvcwjV4ujoeyd-d2: XTS549hCkKyf4UM7rNEeF7Q83CBYdetx3smujtX2FazXTDoWnyuDWjoeyd-d3: XTS5iaa34ikXpLArVrk7wjSEwjpU9fUCznW3bSynuYGtm6xvT2Xdpjoeyd-d4: XTS5a5SrAWoXzUvDmtL4CZcYYLwSkJJk3ch2a9RNzDNERCogZZPY4joeyd-d5: XTS671QbNrgCy945UDPRmDPf3ARQaP6vHBXAH25mt1oB5QRsrwaLS
Because those people didn't get voted in, they are all chosen pretty much arbitrarily. It's to emphasize we are not endorsing them and they are just there as a consequence of the fact that you need *some* initial delegates.
betax * XTS8E7T1qxvfWKVZtq9HBZ8Nmv8RUSxwksukhCx3gcGEKenZN3bfh betax1 XTS73dBszwFUwiTvJQLgcMEBJ8Wx4KJFQuRpsMQADQMMX5Vhtujc5 betax2 XTS8PYVQwRme5bRsQ1q8eufQaRfKyrBJ8ZNWoVRRGuptA2bL8w8rc betax3 XTS7Tvq8YS4s6ch9BoAGs8dXEZov2UDfGcN5KhmU1UzgYiSXW5ovy
Quote from: bytemaster on June 18, 2014, 11:13:04 pmWe are going to initialize all initial delegates with 'negative votes' which will still result in them producing blocks until votes are allocated by shareholders to a share-holder approved vote.That sounds good but what about the names? Will they be "untrusted-delegate-XX"?
We are going to initialize all initial delegates with 'negative votes' which will still result in them producing blocks until votes are allocated by shareholders to a share-holder approved vote.
Here is a proposal that sounds right to me:1 Give all of the initial delegates the names they want2 Assign the total trust to ALL initial delegates to no more than 0.01% of all shares3 Assign ONE special untrusted-delegate with 99.99% of the votes and never enable it. (throw its private key into the deepest river you can find)4 Let the people ruleIs there something wrong with the above ?PS: I know how hard it is to organize everything. You are doing great job. Keep going.PPS: If point 3 is difficult due to the max 2% per delegate you can use 50 special untrusted-delegates and destroy all their keys.
PS alexxy is registered as keyhotee founder (hovever seems like it doesnt gain me any XTS after keyhotee import is it bug or not?)
by popular request we are letting you have names for initial delegates for dry run 3.Please give your name and key here.But seriously it makes no difference, for the real thing we will call everyone "untrusted-delegate-do-not-vote-XX".
QuoteIf they will all be changed for the real run. Why do your directions suggest everyone create a new delegate with real name?Because people asked. And I didn't mean to create new names, just name any existing ones. Man this is a mess, sorry for so much confusion. Will be much more clear for the real deal.
If they will all be changed for the real run. Why do your directions suggest everyone create a new delegate with real name?
But seriously it makes no difference, for the real thing we will call everyone "untrusted-delegate-do-not-vote-XX".
If you want to stay voted in, you should probably create a new delegate to campaign as, as a nameless initial delegate is unlikely to stay a delegate for long.
Quote from: toast on June 18, 2014, 03:28:39 pmBut seriously it makes no difference, for the real thing we will call everyone "untrusted-delegate-do-not-vote-XX".Why should you do that?The delegates participating in the test runs are the best you/we have (at the moment in the universe?).Anyone is free to register new delegate.The initial delegates could start with insignificant amount of votes so that they can be voted out if they arent "good" enough.What is the reasoning in naming them untrusted-delegate?
welk1n-d-1 : XTS6f8fzmUDQp63nTYgsA2GQtvFoPvKrmTmuhkCvQUCnKUJwxTxtxwelk1n-d-2 : XTS5urryfpdjZgwavKwufJ9A1d816LFaPbSQLu5eP2G76B7hbtuxjwelk1n-d-3 : XTS7p56UNQLyWc3NB2yeT4VVtYhanf6wFC356c6vbfpvQ9CHUmg6Xwelk1n-d-4 : XTS7SDs7tmoYe96wjRzYqavAu4nehaMUTh3TbkGe9EPWNbA1P2XPAwelk1n-d-5 : XTS6z7aMnBmXi7qL9uHfgWS6d1wedEpvQNTrwgeGb8h1MH9WVXtRC
NAME (* delegate) KEY REGISTERED TRUST LEVELpan2pan-05 XTS8T5M76CG8PFopcuSoAkvTfzkGhZMR44Dckd6JB5zYxxde1vqaU NO 0
NAME (* delegate) KEY REGISTERED TRUST LEVELmyhometalk-04 XTS4wvHneoHeBxwsMH3YBfNidcWsfio6NWQMD9Twcx2guCb4TwniX NO 0myhometalk-02 XTS8RhJ5ndiBQKzMCajHyqS91k4WiaoqanmJAFRcr1iHQVSeDaAt4 NO 0myhometalk-01 XTS5JqeA3wKYh3PuqjtB8AWozv5qNTgGT6BZhnQCF3J6CHHh5RWqX NO 0