BitShares Forum
Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: Strip on September 07, 2014, 05:11:46 pm
-
Why only 101 delegate?
Why not 200? or 1000?
Is 101 a fix number of delegates? Will it be subject to change?\
Is it true that the more delegates we have the more decentralized the network will be?
-
its not a fixed number!
but more delegates mean more costs. so you have to make a choice between decentralation and costs
-
There is also a voting cost. THe more delegates, the more to keep track of.
-
I hope bytemaster make it dynamic, and find a way to find an "optimal " formula for it.
-
I hope bytemaster make it dynamic, and find a way to find an "optimal " formula for it.
Why is it BM that has to do everything ..
we can come up with something ourselfs ... and if we can argue with him .. we might convince him of a nice solution .. just get started ..
-
I hope bytemaster make it dynamic, and find a way to find an "optimal " formula for it.
Why is it BM that has to do everything ..
we can come up with something ourselfs ... and if we can argue with him .. we might convince him of a nice solution .. just get started ..
I agree. Everyone here is a apart of the team.
-
its not a fixed number!
but more delegates mean more costs. so you have to make a choice between decentralation and costs
It costs far less to host a delegate than it costs to mine a proof of work crypto, so I disagree with that being a negative factor.
What is a negative factor is how on earth we keep track of more than 101 delegates, and make it easy for everyday users to vote for such a large amount of delegates.
Perhaps in a couple years time when delegate campaigns are far more common place and highly competitive, we'll have figured out a good way to expand above 101 delegates.
What i'm interested in, is whether it's possible to merge mine another dac onto the btsx blockchain? And if it's possible, is there any room for sidechains/tree chains to unite dacs instead of a dac being an entirely new system?
-
its not a fixed number!
but more delegates mean more costs. so you have to make a choice between decentralation and costs
It costs far less to host a delegate than it costs to mine a proof of work crypto, so I disagree with that being a negative factor.
What is a negative factor is how on earth we keep track of more than 101 delegates, and make it easy for everyday users to vote for such a large amount of delegates.
Perhaps in a couple years time when delegate campaigns are far more common place and highly competitive, we'll have figured out a good way to expand above 101 delegates.
What i'm interested in, is whether it's possible to merge mine another dac onto the btsx blockchain? And if it's possible, is there any room for sidechains/tree chains to unite dacs instead of a dac being an entirely new system?
This is why the devs came up with delegate slates! you have a friend you trust .. that guys figured out some delegates he like .. so my liking your friend you also like the delegates he likes .. same goes for the your other friends .. and even delegates can publish a slate of other delegates.
effectively .. once slates are more common every user on the blockchain has more than 101 delegates he likes and approves through a WEB OF TRUSTED DELEGATES!
keep in mind .. only if everyone votes for 101 delegates at the same time .. the full power of your votes are counted on the blockchain .. further .. with delegates having slates .. they can proactivly unapprove misbehaving delegates!
I think slates are a huge step towards a decentralized trusted network!