Make a simple rules ,discard suplus part.
It is only way to resolve issues.
Don't fear liquidity not enough. don't fear BTS's price volatility，Please let BTS adjust by itself。
Most people like me just fear the complex rules, so not like trade in BTS.
Make rules simple , Will bring more people trade in it.

BTS getting more complex, The more complex system made more complex issue, So the more complex system must be more complex to resolve the more complex issue. and so on, BTS will be dead.

So it must be stop to made more complex rule.

The most probable way to resolve BTS's issue is made the rule as simple as possible.
Not only the delegate voting system ,and it is same to mechanism to creating a stable digital currency.

Make the most simple rule to resolve complex issue.
This is the way to succeed.

唯一能解决去中心化交易所锚定资产的方法是找到一个简单到变态的方法， 而这个方法能解决百分之80-90的问题，这样就已经足够了。

复杂度越来越高，只会把BTS带向死亡。

 

Quote from: bigcat on May 06, 2015, 04:12:36 pm

这个逻辑是错的。对受托人的支持程度，应该分3种：支持，一般（不支持也不反对），反对。
如果为了反对一个人，必须支持其他所有人（其中很多是本来不想支持的），那怎样才能支持自己真正想支持的受托人呢？

选101个委托人,并不是选一个委托人
如果直接使用反对票会让系统出现问题, 有反对票话, 每个代表的得票率=赞成票-反对票, 
对于这个系统来说能投出的总反对票和总赞成票是相等的. 那么所有代表的票数总和应该等于0
这样任何一个小的投票都可以控制系统

那就美国总统的选举来说, 上次奥巴马的普通选票得票率为50.1%，罗姆尼的普通选票得票率为48.4%,
分析,选奥巴马的人肯定反对罗姆尼, 选罗姆尼肯定反对奥巴马.
如果有反对票
奥巴马得票=50.1%(赞成)-48.4%(反对)=1.7%
罗姆尼得票=48.4%(赞成)-50.1%(反对)=-1.7%(<0)
他们两个最后的得票都很低
上面我只是做了一个类比,但你可以发现
如果是这样,我们需要101个代表, 那么很多选票为0的代表都可以出块了,  这样会让系统非常不安全.

锁定5年，5年内基本上是通缩的，但5年后呢， 这是豪赌5年后成功，还是豪赌5年后要失败？
即使是成功，5年后待释放的BTS量是巨大的。

这个压力会像一座大山，在这5年里一直压着BTS。

但是，目前受托人每月所得确实维持不了开发经费， 饭都吃不饱，开发如何解决？以BTS作为结算工资，本身就有缺陷，BTS价格波动，受托人的月收入不稳定。

个人建议：
币价低的时候，可以允许一个受托人发起多个受托人ID来投票，以保证delegate的日常开销，当币价高的时候，shareholder可以把多余的受托人ID投下去。

这样做的一个关键是决定权在shareholder手上，而且这个规则本身也没有改变系统的通胀(受托人)机制。

另外，找VC这个事情， 个人觉得完全是受托人自己的事情，你有能力，有投资潜力，可以吸引VC来投资，没有问题， 但这和shareholders没有关系，这是你delegate自己的事情，这个协议只要delegate和VC谈好条件就可以了，关shareholders什么事情呢

有人会觉得这个建议有一个弊端，就是当币价过低时，可能带来更大的抛压。

个人觉得这是不可避免的，经济学常说的一句话是：让市场来决定供需关系，这个放在BTS也一样，让shareholders来决定受托人数以及通胀率，完全把权力交给shareholder才是正确的，这也符合去中心化的思想。

PS：即使有些shareholders可能做了错误的选择，但这个错误是必须允许可以犯的，所有的决定都会围绕真正的平衡点上下波动。delegate如果觉得维持不了，坚持不下去可以选择放弃，或者兼职， 即使是BM也一样，因为BTS币价这么低，肯定是哪里出来问题，除了外部原因外， 也要从自身找原因。

另外，如果1BTS=0.02cny的时候，决定每天产生25WBTS给7个core delegeta， 那当1BTS=1元，10元或100元的时候，这个决定还是正确的么。除了这7个core delegate外， 其他受托人又怎么办呢。

My counterproposal:

* Instead of spending time on this, spend time on getting bitAssets 2.0 finalized and coded, and getting stable client released fairly soon. 

* As a result of 1.0 release and improved bitassets which ahve better convertability and don't punish shorts, BTS price hopefully rebounds.  Developer pay goes back towards what we would like it to be.  If BTS price doesnt rebound, developers create more paid delegates, and the community can vote them in to keep devs fed.

* Later on, now that the critical and immediate needs of Bitshares are completed, if we feel that separating workers from block producers is important, put time into working on this.  But even then, it is competing against other features that would be nice, such as the bond market, prediction market, voting on proposals, smart contracts, etc.


If the plan in the original post in this thread is better than my plan, or is critical right now for some reason, please explain why.  I am very open to hearing this, and am not going to claim that I am definitely right or anything like that.  After all, the core team is MUCH better informed about what is going on in bitshares than I am, and they know everything going on behind the scenes, and I don't. 

What makes it so that we NEED to prioritize work on this change right now?  Is this the biggest thing for us to work on right now?  Is it worth pivoting in this way, given the perception that we already pivot too much, and that we are also already pivoting on bitAssets (which is necessary). 


I would like to see a Bitshares that doesnt just pivot, pivot, pivot, over and over.  But sticks with working things and gives them time to work.  We learned that bitassets had a problem and we needed to fix that, which is important, and justifies the pivot there.  What requires the pivot here, at this point in the development?  If the devs need more compensaiton, which is justified imo given that the price declined so much, isnt the easy answer of 'devs create more delegates and we vote them in' a much better solution?  One which requires no development time because it doesnt change bitshares in any way?


I would really like to see a stable 1.0 release which fixes problems people are having with the client as soon as possible.  Other things should not be being prioritized over this unless they are essential.

Thanks!

    

M和P在基本功能上是和BTS是相同的，并在BTS的基础上做了更适合Music和Play特性的新功能，所以有一些M和P简单的功能BTS也能做，但这并不奇怪，也不用担心。同样BTS的很多功能放在P和M上也没有问题。
希望Music、Play、BTS不要变成敌对关系， 每个DAC偏重的领域不同，每个都有前途。

ID：bts-hero