This is the maximum rate, which would be around 6.3% inflation, which we should try to stay well below, imo, because of the perception impact that it has on the price. If you inflate at 6% and it causes people to dump back to 1400 sats, you will get less money that if we inflate at current 2% level and the price is a lot higher. The price is our #1 marketing tool right now, and having it collapse again would be really bad for the project.
I think 17 is too low and somewhat risky IMO.
I think BM numbers are good but for people outside of BitShares, 17 may seem too little, even scary. People from Bitcoin use to think they are fully decentralised, even if it's not the case with pooling.
some numbers are inherently more appealing than others.
Ask a friend to think of a two-digit number less than 50. Tell them both the digits must be odd and different. Say that they can’t have 11 but could have 13. When psychologists tried this in experiments, more than a third chose 37.
The number 3 (三, Pinyin: sān, jyutping: saam1) sounds similar to the character for "birth" (生, Pinyin: shēng, jyutping: saang1), and is considered a lucky number.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numbers_in_Chinese_culture#Combinations
The number 7 (七, Pinyin: qī (Mandarin) "chut" (Cantonese) symbolizes "togetherness".It is a lucky number for relationships.
Then 33 is probably the next best number. 33 degrees ;)
Looking at the business partners Graphene has attracted, and what attracted them, it matters little what "bitcoiners" perceive as secure.
Kind of reminds me of the famous goose that laid the golden eggs.We know that a lot of bitcoiners and altcoiners think btsx is a "crapcoin" and a ponzi scheme. So why do we really care what they say about us diluting btsx? Many of them are set in stone and won't "convert". This is why they aren't a target demographic for btsx. Our time, money and energy should be focused on people outside the crypto sphere. Those people don't care how it works, but if it works.Kind of reminds me of the famous five monkeys experiment.
Nobody in those communities is willing to go for the bananas any more
but no one remembers why.
I think 17's too much initially. I don't see why we need more than 11.
Bitshares perception problem has less to do with centralized nature of system and more to do with the fact that the windows GUI didn't work very well.
We need to stop think in terms of bitcoin and what people with in the bitcoin community think about centralization vs decentralization or how a blockchain can and can't be used.
@Helikopterben The premise of a blockchain is not decentralization it is information symmetry, which allows for participants in the network to more efficiently work together and manage risks. I don't think you understand how our financial system works. The government dictates property rights and there is no way around that particularly in the information age where most property is digitally recorded. I don't care if there is a central authority that controls the blockchain so long as the inherent transparency of the blockchain ensures that entity is accountable for their breach of protocol. In the end you're vision is not practical by any measure. So long as we have national governments we won't see it play out since governments will always seek to control the flow of capital within their borders, for security and policy reasons.
I think 17's too much initially. I don't see why we need more than 11.
Bitshares perception problem has less to do with centralized nature of system and more to do with the fact that the windows GUI didn't work very well.
We need to stop think in terms of bitcoin and what people with in the bitcoin community think about centralization vs decentralization or how a blockchain can and can't be used.
Well I know you don't really believe in the value of decentralisation at all, so you'd be happy with just 1... ;D@Helikopterben The premise of a blockchain is not decentralization it is information symmetry, which allows for participants in the network to more efficiently work together and manage risks. I don't think you understand how our financial system works. The government dictates property rights and there is no way around that particularly in the information age where most property is digitally recorded. I don't care if there is a central authority that controls the blockchain so long as the inherent transparency of the blockchain ensures that entity is accountable for their breach of protocol. In the end you're vision is not practical by any measure. So long as we have national governments we won't see it play out since governments will always seek to control the flow of capital within their borders, for security and policy reasons.
I think 17's too much initially. I don't see why we need more than 11.
Bitshares perception problem has less to do with centralized nature of system and more to do with the fact that the windows GUI didn't work very well.
We need to stop think in terms of bitcoin and what people with in the bitcoin community think about centralization vs decentralization or how a blockchain can and can't be used.
Well I know you don't really believe in the value of decentralisation at all, so you'd be happy with just 1... ;D@Helikopterben The premise of a blockchain is not decentralization it is information symmetry, which allows for participants in the network to more efficiently work together and manage risks. I don't think you understand how our financial system works. The government dictates property rights and there is no way around that particularly in the information age where most property is digitally recorded. I don't care if there is a central authority that controls the blockchain so long as the inherent transparency of the blockchain ensures that entity is accountable for their breach of protocol. In the end you're vision is not practical by any measure. So long as we have national governments we won't see it play out since governments will always seek to control the flow of capital within their borders, for security and policy reasons.
I believe in decentralization as it pertains to the division of labor. That is to say I think decentralization should be used for the purpose of added efficiency not redundancy. But maybe I'm thinking too pragmatically.
Yes but I believe decentralisation adds value by providing protection from things like government interference, but you seem to view the power of the state over the modern financial system as largely omnipotent, challenging it futile, and decentralisation therefore redundant. I think Identabit takes a similar view.
I think the BTS business model still revolves around providing privacy and financial freedom at a level that may ultimately be unpopular with some and therefore being effectively decentralised & geographically diverse to protect from interference is not redundant imo.
Yes but I believe decentralisation adds value by providing protection from things like government interference, but you seem to view the power of the state over the modern financial system as largely omnipotent, challenging it futile, and decentralisation therefore redundant. I think Identabit takes a similar view.
I think the BTS business model still revolves around providing privacy and financial freedom at a level that may ultimately be unpopular with some and therefore being effectively decentralised & geographically diverse to protect from interference is not redundant imo.
Thats the point of making the network more dynamic. If it ever comes to the point that a government bands this technology we will be able to pivot accordingly. Right now governments know little to nothing about bitshares and it would take months for them decide on policy measures. To initially have more than 11 witnesses is redundant. Do you really think that you can't have geographically diverse set of 11 delegates?
the number doesn't really matter!a great car run with speed 40km/s sometimes , it not mean this car cannot run with speed 200 km/s
if we lower, we will get attact.
so i am not worried about this.
my questions are:
1. how does we guarentee that all 17 witnesses are unic?
2. if they all run on amazon, i don't call us decentraliced, because this gigant can shut all witnesses easily out.
I like the number 42 - because it is the answer for anything!
I think we should be very careful not to underestimate the problem we could have with perception if we go with too few witnesses. Perception is everything when it comes to valuation, so why take a chance? I would rather see us err on the side of too many witnesses than too few.
Also, I think at least at the outset, people will want to become witnesses *not* because they will make $300 per month, but because they want to be a part of something meaningful, and because they have a stake and therefore want to participate in securing the network. Maybe someday the pay rate can be high enough to act as a real incentive, but for now why don't we set the pay as low as we need to in order to have as many witnesses as possible without diluting too much?
With that in mind, why not shoot for somewhere between 51-101 witnesses at an initial payrate in the $50-100 range, for a total cost of $5100-10100? Also, maybe we should consider fixing the pay in BTS terms so the pay will automatically scale up with the value of BTS, while the rate of dilution associated with witness pay will remain fixed. We could also specify a floor and a cap in dollar terms so the pay never goes below a certain dollar amount (i.e. cost of running server) if BTS should drop in price, and also so pay never becomes excessive when BTS becomes much more valuable.
1. how does we guarentee that all 17 witnesses are unic?
2. if they all run on amazon, i don't call us decentraliced, because this gigant can shut all witnesses easily out.
Environment Variables:
TERM=xterm
PATH=/sbin:/usr/sbin:/bin:/usr/bin
PWD=/var/www/ecd6a08763eae1bb12c9b395811c802f/live
LANG=en_US.UTF-8
SHLVL=2
_=/opt/nginx/sbin/nginx
SERVER_SOFTWARE=nginx/1.6.0
PASSENGER_DEBUG_DIR=/tmp/passenger.spawn-debug.XXXX154IJs
USER=app_1031
LOGNAME=app_1031
SHELL=/sbin/nologin
HOME=/home/app_1031
IN_PASSENGER=1
PYTHONUNBUFFERED=1
NODE_PATH=/opt/passenger/passenger-4.0.48/node_lib
RAILS_ENV=production
RACK_ENV=production
WSGI_ENV=production
NODE_ENV=production
PASSENGER_APP_ENV=production
SERVER_PROTOCOL=HTTP/1.1
SCGI=1
DOCUMENT_ROOT=/var/www/ecd6a08763eae1bb12c9b395811c802f//live/public
QUERY_STRING=
SERVER_NAME=some-domain.com
REMOTE_PORT=33984
REMOTE_ADDR=79.214.235.96
SERVER_PORT=80
REQUEST_METHOD=GET
APP_CONFIG={"mongo":{"host":"localhost","port":27017,"hostString":"localhost:27017\/app_1031","user":"app_1031","db":"app_1031"}}
SERVER_ADDR=172.31.26.5
REQUEST_URI=/
1. how does we guarentee that all 17 witnesses are unic?
2. if they all run on amazon, i don't call us decentraliced, because this gigant can shut all witnesses easily out.
+5% +5%
17 sounds very low to me.
there are roughly 193 countries in the world.
- decentralization requires a diverse geographical-location too.
webhosting companies are a dime a dozen and I can pretty much assure you that there is an io.js hosting company in every one of those 193 countries.
if we can somehow code it so that paid witnesses are auto-chosen by their low latency, high uptime, rapid upgrades/updates (separate blockchain for logging this info?) and geo-location (detected via IP, ping times, EnvVars (see code below), "whoisHostingThis", etc), then I think we're good. a bare minimum being 20, and if the network tries to dip below that then ____fill in ramifications here____.
Code: [Select]
Environment Variables:
TERM=xterm
PATH=/sbin:/usr/sbin:/bin:/usr/bin
PWD=/var/www/ecd6a08763eae1bb12c9b395811c802f/live
LANG=en_US.UTF-8
SHLVL=2
_=/opt/nginx/sbin/nginx
SERVER_SOFTWARE=nginx/1.6.0
PASSENGER_DEBUG_DIR=/tmp/passenger.spawn-debug.XXXX154IJs
USER=app_1031
LOGNAME=app_1031
SHELL=/sbin/nologin
HOME=/home/app_1031
IN_PASSENGER=1
PYTHONUNBUFFERED=1
NODE_PATH=/opt/passenger/passenger-4.0.48/node_lib
RAILS_ENV=production
RACK_ENV=production
WSGI_ENV=production
NODE_ENV=production
PASSENGER_APP_ENV=production
SERVER_PROTOCOL=HTTP/1.1
SCGI=1
DOCUMENT_ROOT=/var/www/ecd6a08763eae1bb12c9b395811c802f//live/public
QUERY_STRING=
SERVER_NAME=some-domain.com
REMOTE_PORT=33984
REMOTE_ADDR=79.214.235.96
SERVER_PORT=80
REQUEST_METHOD=GET
APP_CONFIG={"mongo":{"host":"localhost","port":27017,"hostString":"localhost:27017\/app_1031","user":"app_1031","db":"app_1031"}}
SERVER_ADDR=172.31.26.5
REQUEST_URI=/
i think we should let the code make those decisions, not humans.
Evennode (in Slovakia) for example, is an iojs host that only costs 6€ per month and their uptimes are incredible. if we set the pay as a dynamic percentage of [and the minimum number of witnesses based on] market cap, then each node will get paid what they need to be paid, plus a little to make it worth everyone's while AND then we do not have to cap the max number of witnesses.
LIFE requires Else conditions.
just my 2sats :)
In the most recent Mumble session we discussed the witness pay and witness count for BTS 2.0 and today I would like to bring the discussion to the forum.
The job of a witness is the following:
1. Have 99.9% uptime
2. Maintain Low Latency connections
3. Rapidly upgrade in response to bug fixes.
4. Identify and help fix issues that may occur.
At a minimum this will require $40 per month to host a Digital Ocean (or equivalent machine). It will also require at least 10 hours of work per month to keep up to date, especially at first. The labor required is skilled labor.
I suggested that each witness should receive $300 per month for 100% uptime. This should make the job very competitive and therefore result in higher quality witnesses with an eye toward keeping their job rather than relying on volunteer witnesses with nothing to lose if they have less than 99.9% reliability.
At today's market cap the network has a maximum spending rate of about $65,000 per month which can go toward witnesses and workers. If we were to maintain 101 witnesses it would cost the network $30,000 per month at $300 per witness.
In my opinion we should aim for around 17 witnesses rather than 101 for the following reasons:
1. It would only cost the network about $5100 per month
2. It is a number that is small enough for voters to reason about and evaluate
3. It is a number that is large enough to be geographically / politically diverse
4. Is greater than the number of slices in the Bitcoin mining distribution: https://blockchain.info/pools
5. It is similar to the number of validators Ripple has: https://validators.ripple.com/#/validators
While we are small having more witnesses does not buy us anything. The probability that an extra 84 witnesses will have any impact on the security of the network is so close to 0 that the price we pay for that extra redundancy does not make economic sense.
I would recommend that we instead diversify the other 84 positions into a combination of:
Committee Members, Workers, and Proxy Voters.
Having a core group of active proxy voters will help make the network more responsive and more secure than having more witnesses.
Cryptonomex will not be a witness so has no skin in the game of setting this price. We just want to offer the best advice we know of and then let you all decide how many you can actually vote for and are willing to pay for.
Correct on all counts - but I still stand by what I said. The market cap of crypto hasn't move from around ~$4BB USD. All these changes and volumes are exactly just the crypto community shuffling funds from one place to another. Chicken feed and table scraps. The real money, hundreds of billions, has yet to enter the fray and it's them I'm interested in designing the system for.
Looking at the business partners Graphene has attracted, and what attracted them, it matters little what "bitcoiners" perceive as secure.
Yes, this is what you guys said about dilution.
[snip...]
Your current valuation and 6 figure volumes are from alt-coin speculators and investors. Not new business partners and their networks, yet. So I would say it matters quite a lot how the alt-coin market views BTS.[/c][/c]
First, in regards to PR, we should pursue a narrative where we *start out* with x, and then move towards y. None of the people I initially told about 1s transaction times objected when I said due to complications we would do 3->2->1, because people intuitively understand start small and grow towards a goal - everyone can relate and it makes for an interesting story.This.
Second, I feel like the discussion is too theoretical for this stage. We can't simply decide in advance on the number of good witnesses relative to pay, because we have no idea who is out there and willing to jump into this spare time. There is a human element here, where we need to take note of the people who are willing and active right here right now, and see what they are willing to do for how much.
Mixing these considerations with the other suggestions here, I think we should collect a list of at least 17 independent people who are willing to be a witness right here and now, and PR wise point to a future number, like 37, that we are aiming for as we grow.
Also, doesn't 17 witnesses kiss goodbye to minebitshares?
The witnesses should be all in individual countries to be safe. With rising marketcap, the number can be increased.
@bytemaster the biggest issue with having only 17 witnesses are the price feeds for bitassets .. the median of 17 can be manipulated easier that for 31 ...
would it be possible to have yet another role on-chain? Those that publish feeds for bitassets? Not sure how to pay the though ..
The witnesses should be all in individual countries to be safe. With rising marketcap, the number can be increased.How do you propose to prove their location?
Would any of these Else conditions help? https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,18549.msg238114.html#msg238114
You may laugh at the Bitcoin crowd, but they know what it means to be under attack.
I'm somewhat puzzled by this discussion...
How important is securing the network which is the witness role? How big of a hit would BitShares take if security was compromised? Isn't it better to aim too high than too low?
Bribery, persecution of individuals, DDOS attacks? Do you guys really believe that 17 witnesses is enough decentralization for fighting big government? You may laugh at the Bitcoin crowd, but they know what it means to be under attack. BitShares is still too small to have felt the spotlight, and we're the ones going for the throat of the banks.
Is a potential 100 million dollar financial network really going to run on 17 VPSes costing $40 each? Are we really going to limit the cost of the security for this network to $8160 a year? That sounds kind of absurd to me.
Bitcoin is currently spending more than 200 million dollars on security. Considering the market cap, that is of course not a fair comparison, but even if BitShares brought that number down to 100K (~0.67% of current market cap) it would still be an incredible improvement over Bitcoin.
When I envision the BitShares 2.0 network 2 years into the future, I see 300 high-power witnesses running the network from all corners of the world. The difficulty and cost of attacking the BitShares Network is absolutely mind-boggling, as it should be.
Also, denominating witness pay in BTS is more useful than USD. A higher BTS price means more adoption, higher volume, which in turn places higher requirements on the witnesses. Also, witnesses will participate who actually believe in BTS, not just to make a quick buck.
To sum it up, 17 is way too low. It is natural that the number of witnesses will increase as we grow, not decrease. Start out at 67 witnesses with the option of increasing the number with no upper limit. Keep in mind, letting people run a witness also educates people about BitShares (like me). If you later want to increase from 17 to 35, how long will it take to get 18 qualified admins to jump in?
My 2 BTS. Help me understand why I'm wrong.
You may laugh at the Bitcoin crowd, but they know what it means to be under attack.
And they are OK with this? https://blockchain.info/pools (https://blockchain.info/pools)
Seems like 6 "witnesses" sign more than 50% of BTC blocks.
You may laugh at the Bitcoin crowd, but they know what it means to be under attack.
And they are OK with this? https://blockchain.info/pools (https://blockchain.info/pools)
Seems like 6 "witnesses" sign more than 50% of BTC blocks.
If the pool goes down miners can still go to other pool to secure the network .
If 17 witness is down , I don't think the network is capable of electing new witness to keep the network running . (unless there is something magical I don't know about . )
I have no idea how "the market" will perceive 17 witnesses but I personally see no problem with it.
So I agree with Riverhead that Bitcoin security is very weak.
I have no idea how "the market" will perceive 17 witnesses but I personally see no problem with it. Since the number of witnesses is dynamic, shareholders can vote for increased security if and when it's needed. How many bouncers does a little mom and pop business need? Not many. Wait until the little business turns into something huge before adding all those redundant expenses up-front. I don't think this community should let irrational perception guide it, even if it means a smaller market cap for now.
If 17 witness is down , I don't think the network is capable of electing new witness to keep the network running . (unless there is something magical I don't know about . )
The bitcoin network spends 25 BTC every 10 minutes on security, that's $33k per day. How much does it cost to elect 17 witnesses? ...Once one person does that, it's goodbye chain.
BTS: 17 delegates @ $300/mo is $61,200 per year to protect $15,000,000 of tokens = "annual 0.4% security fee".
So I agree with Riverhead that Bitcoin security is very weak.
The bitcoin network spends 25 BTC every 10 minutes on security, that's $33k per day. How much does it cost to elect 17 witnesses? ...Once one person does that, it's goodbye chain.
You would only need to elect 9 witnesses to have a majority however the cost of such an election would be huge. Currently the 8th ranked delegate has about 440,000,000 BTS voting for them so to displace them you'd need to vote with at least that much. That's a little over $2.5MM in BTS (assuming you could buy that much without moving the price - or you already have it). That's a huge amount of money to throw away just to bring down BTS.
So I agree with Riverhead that Bitcoin security is very weak.
The bitcoin network spends 25 BTC every 10 minutes on security, that's $33k per day. How much does it cost to elect 17 witnesses? ...Once one person does that, it's goodbye chain.
You would only need to elect 9 witnesses to have a majority however the cost of such an election would be huge. Currently the 8th ranked delegate has about 440,000,000 BTS voting for them so to displace them you'd need to vote with at least that much. That's a little over $2.5MM in BTS (assuming you could buy that much without moving the price - or you already have it). That's a huge amount of money to throw away just to bring down BTS.
I have no idea how "the market" will perceive 17 witnesses but I personally see no problem with it. Since the number of witnesses is dynamic, shareholders can vote for increased security if and when it's needed. How many bouncers does a little mom and pop business need? Not many. Wait until the little business turns into something huge before adding all those redundant expenses up-front. I don't think this community should let irrational perception guide it, even if it means a smaller market cap for now.
Number 4 (四; accounting 肆; pinyin sì) is considered an unlucky number in Chinese because it is nearly homophonous to the word "death" (死 pinyin sǐ). Due to that, many product lines skip the "4". In Hong Kong, some high-rise residential buildings omit all floor numbers with "4", in addition to not having a 13th floor.
BTS: 17 delegates @ $300/mo is $61,200 per year to protect $15,000,000 of tokens = "annual 0.4% security fee".
That means if someone want's to heart bts he can easier give for example $200K (or whatever) to 5-9 "corrupted" witnesses instead of $millions....
I think the annual security fees must be higher than that and of course lower than for the bitcoin chain.... Let the shareholders decide dynamically how much security they want over time and let them adjust it accordingly... The circumstances are changing every minute on our world don't make the same mistake like with the static 101 delegates, it make no sense.
The bitcoin network spends 25 BTC every 10 minutes on security, that's $33k per day. How much does it cost to elect 17 witnesses? ...Once one person does that, it's goodbye chain.
actually bitcoin is controlled by top 5 mine pool , do you remember 5 mine pool in china refuse update the max block sizeThe bitcoin network spends 25 BTC every 10 minutes on security, that's $33k per day. How much does it cost to elect 17 witnesses? ...Once one person does that, it's goodbye chain.
This. +5%
There is no doubt that Bitcoin has its weaknesses in both decentralization and security (those are not always the same). But anyone claiming that BitShares, as it stands today, has security anywhere near that of Bitcoin is in need of a serious reality check. If you want to attack the Bitcoin network directly (disable it), you need to attack ~6000 full nodes and disable a good chunk of the mining power so that block processing is effectively disabled. With pool-miners essentially able to switch pools at a whim, this must be an extremely difficult operation. If it was feasible (with Bitcoin's 3-4 billion USD market cap) it would have been done already. Let's not arrogantly dismiss Bitcoin's proven security.
As far as I can tell, one of the real dangers to Bitcoin right now is someone controlling a majority of the core devs and driving opinion that way (opinion influences nodes and miners). The recent block size debate has taught us that is still a weakness of Bitcoin. Taking control of mining power is extremely expensive, and can today only be done by huge actors that are good at staying hidden for an extended period of time.
BitShares may be be doing things more efficiently than Bitcoin, but I'm struggling to see how a big actor will have any problem whatsoever taking down 17 witnesses running on 300$ a month. Now I'm not a hacker or security expert, but I've seen how something so small as the newly set up Norwegian Pirate Party DNS server (combatting Pirate Bay censorship) may quickly find itself under heavy DDOS fire. Why would something like this not pose a danger to the BitShares network, with our portfolio of powerful enemies?
I'm thinking that if there is a possible attack vector into BitShares, it will be used. Distributing witness control over several 100 will make it more robust. We need to be proactive with BitShares security, better too much than too little. If the BitShares network is only once attacked and driven to a halt, the crypto community will nod their heads and go "Mhm, that's what we thought. Game over."
how about set a minimum number first such as 17 then increase the number according to the feed price(acutally this is the paramater of marketing cap)?
For example:
17 witness when 2.0 lunch.
if feed_price > 0.1, witness_number = 33
if feed_price > 0.2, witness_number = 51
......
if the system is strong, we don't need to worry about this delution and we can even set more than 101 witness, but the reality is we're still a little baby, we need to make us strong step by step
actually bitcoin is controlled by top 5 mine pool , do you remember 5 mine pool in china refuse update the max block size
and most of miner don`t take care of chain
BitShares may be be doing things more efficiently than Bitcoin, but I'm struggling to see how a big actor will have any problem whatsoever taking down 17 witnesses running on 300$ a month. Now I'm not a hacker or security expert, but I've seen how something so small as the newly set up Norwegian Pirate Party DNS server (combatting Pirate Bay censorship) may quickly find itself under heavy DDOS fire. Why would something like this not pose a danger to the BitShares network, with our portfolio of powerful enemies?
BitShares may be be doing things more efficiently than Bitcoin, but I'm struggling to see how a big actor will have any problem whatsoever taking down 17 witnesses running on 300$ a month. Now I'm not a hacker or security expert, but I've seen how something so small as the newly set up Norwegian Pirate Party DNS server (combatting Pirate Bay censorship) may quickly find itself under heavy DDOS fire. Why would something like this not pose a danger to the BitShares network, with our portfolio of powerful enemies?
A delegate can move their block signing node to any computer under their control connected to the internet in a matter of seconds. This makes a DDOS attack nearly impossible.
In detail:
1) You notice your node is missing blocks and can't log in to your server due to DDOS
2) Connect to another computer you control, update_witness with new signing key
This allows your new witness to sign blocks and prevents your old witness, in the event the DDOS is not a complete shutout or ends, from double signing.
how about set a minimum number first such as 17 then increase the number according to the feed price(acutally this is the paramater of marketing cap)?
For example:
17 witness when 2.0 lunch.
if feed_price > 0.1, witness_number = 33
if feed_price > 0.2, witness_number = 51
......
if the system is strong, we don't need to worry about this delution and we can even set more than 101 witness, but the reality is we're still a little baby, we need to make us strong step by step
I think this could be a solution but I don't know if it's feasible. Would grant us what we want, high number of witnesses and save money
Get some parameters like (from btsblocks):
- Average Latency
- Active feeds
- Uptime
Witnesses only get paid as long as those parameters have a certain value. Example: to get paid a witness would need >98% uptime and 1,4s average latency and published all feeds. This would increase the number of witnesses and competetivity. For example we would still have the benefits of having witnesses with 97% uptime, published all-1 feeds, etc, etc
Does this make sense? Is it feasible? That's the best I can think of. Satisfies all conditions we want.
how about set a minimum number first such as 17 then increase the number according to the feed price(acutally this is the paramater of marketing cap)?
The actual number need not be coded in and is entirely set by voters in real time. The only number we need to set is PAY.
I think this could be a solution but I don't know if it's feasible. Would grant us what we want, high number of witnesses and save money
Get some parameters like (from btsblocks):
- Average Latency
- Active feeds
- Uptime
Witnesses only get paid as long as those parameters have a certain value. Example: to get paid a witness would need >98% uptime and 1,4s average latency and published all feeds. This would increase the number of witnesses and competetivity. For example we would still have the benefits of having witnesses with 97% uptime, published all-1 feeds, etc, etc
Does this make sense? Is it feasible? That's the best I can think of. Satisfies all conditions we want.
Latency calculations are completely relative to where you are pinging from... so I don't see how that can work unless you incorporate much more complicated calculations that make each node geo aware. I am concerned that could provide an attack vector of not implemented correctly.
I understand that pay is already tied to uptime... as for feeds that's what is being debated now I think.
Then get witnesses to be paid only if uptime is higher than 98% but let others operate within a larger limit. We could have 50 or more witnesses competing for that spot instead of the original 17. As long as a witness has >98% uptime they get paid.
Chance the requirements from a random quantitative number, to performance.
Then get witnesses to be paid only if uptime is higher than 98% but let others operate within a larger limit. We could have 50 or more witnesses competing for that spot instead of the original 17. As long as a witness has >98% uptime they get paid.
Chance the requirements from a random quantitative number, to performance.
I think pay is not much in initially , I think $150 is enough , hire $80 per month vps and other $70 is for maintainhow about set a minimum number first such as 17 then increase the number according to the feed price(acutally this is the paramater of marketing cap)?
For example:
17 witness when 2.0 lunch.
if feed_price > 0.1, witness_number = 33
if feed_price > 0.2, witness_number = 51
......
if the system is strong, we don't need to worry about this delution and we can even set more than 101 witness, but the reality is we're still a little baby, we need to make us strong step by step
The actual number need not be coded in and is entirely set by voters in real time. The only number we need to set is PAY.
This may be a quick but a little dirty solution for those that care about the pay, the amount of individuals in control and the perceived decentralization:
Since "perception is everyting" .. why not have 17 individuals that each run 3 witnesses (3 different accounts)
That way we have 51 "witnesses" ... and only need to pay 17 machines :)
and you can clearly communicate it that way:
if you are not ok with that guy running 3 out of 51, vote him out, or reduce the amount of witnesses with your stake
My proposal is pretty much exactly the same thing as BMs proposal in the OP .. it just removes the perceived issued with 17 being "so small" .. :DThis may be a quick but a little dirty solution for those that care about the pay, the amount of individuals in control and the perceived decentralization:
Since "perception is everyting" .. why not have 17 individuals that each run 3 witnesses (3 different accounts)
That way we have 51 "witnesses" ... and only need to pay 17 machines :)
and you can clearly communicate it that way:
if you are not ok with that guy running 3 out of 51, vote him out, or reduce the amount of witnesses with your stake
Is there only around 17 trusted individuals capable of running a witness?
It could be seen from the outside as a closed loop.
Too much control can be counter productive.
I don't think you guys are in touch with reality if you don't think 17 is a public relations disaster. It's not good security wise either. Easy to collude. It's a bad solution from any angle.
even if we want less witnesses they must be dynamic auto changing...
nobody will successful accuse us for the number of witnesses when they know the decision was made from the blockchain-code and not decision's made from one individual, in our case Daniel Larimer (doesn't really matter the name)...
I don't think you guys are in touch with reality if you don't think 17 is a public relations disaster. It's not good security wise either. Easy to collude. It's a bad solution from any angle.+5%
+5% Let the code do it, dynamically.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,18549.msg238114.html#msg238114