0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
QuoteRight now if I have 6% of BTSX I could kick everybody else out. ...because not many are voting yet.
Right now if I have 6% of BTSX I could kick everybody else out.
Quote from: delulo on July 23, 2014, 03:44:18 amDo we actually know what the distribution of BTS X is? And could there be an incentive for shareholders to vote? Less tx fees for shareholders that vote?This is the best thing I heard so far. I would even go as far as say dormant accounts, should experience burn of 5%/year. And one way to not be dormant is to vote.
Do we actually know what the distribution of BTS X is? And could there be an incentive for shareholders to vote? Less tx fees for shareholders that vote?
You are assuming that the rest 70% will actually manage to select and vote for the SAME 101 delegates, enough to push big fish out.Right now if I have 6% of BTSX I could kick everybody else out. That's about 2,000 BTC or $1.2M. Even a medium size fish could pull that off Luckily there is no withdrawals yet at BTER and BTC38.
You are assuming that the rest 70% will actually manage to select and vote for the SAME 101 delegates, enough to push big fish out.
...assumptions: big fish voted with his full stake for his delegates; and the rest that voted did not vote for big fish's delegates...
I'm sure Dan and team will come up with a good solution, it's good that we put the ideas out in the open. I'm focusing on making a delegate statistics tool, so we can speak in numbers.
Even if all the rest of 90% vote, unless they all vote for the same small guys, they will not kick out the big fish.
I want to avoid the scenario where one big fish of 10% in BTSX could have 100% of the delegates and declare monopoly! Which has kinda been happening.
Ok. How about this:Self correcting system. Based on a delegate % of missed blocks, you let in a random potential candidate for a block.So a delegate drops down to 80% of reliability. In the future with a 20% chance you give their block to a delegate waiting in line.That will motivate delegates to be 100% and also self correct if they are down for some reason.
Quote from: krabbypatty on July 22, 2014, 07:38:28 pmI'm trying to make sure that if a delegate has 5% of the votes, they get to produce 5% of the blocks. Some services run a good cause and pay for a node regardless this can help them offset that cost even if it doesn't fully pay it.I understand the concern of running 1000 nodes instead of 100. But come one $50k/mo is nothing when the network grows.Also as far as voting goes these numbers should be votes by the community and not hard coded let the market decide how many delegates we need.No no no, that just can't be. All of the potentially good delegates with 5% will be right alongside the crappy/evil delegates that were good long enough to get more votes and havent gone back down to 0% yet. It may be okay to adjust the number of delegates but that needs to not allow for all potential delegates to get a chance. Bad idea! And it also can't screw over the really awesome delegates with 90% of the vote but can randomly not get to produce blocks and not be able to predict the income that they need in order to be such an awesome delegate.
I'm trying to make sure that if a delegate has 5% of the votes, they get to produce 5% of the blocks. Some services run a good cause and pay for a node regardless this can help them offset that cost even if it doesn't fully pay it.I understand the concern of running 1000 nodes instead of 100. But come one $50k/mo is nothing when the network grows.Also as far as voting goes these numbers should be votes by the community and not hard coded let the market decide how many delegates we need.
He doesn't have to validate blocks he missed because he won't be included in the batch selection if he has marked himself as I'm no longer running.In fact you kinda already have that. If I edit my account could I remove the delegate portion? If yes then you have what I'm talking about. I'm not sure if one can make themselves not a delegate and then later reregister. And if they lose the votes in the process.
It's a flag that says "include me in the considered delegates" only needs to be switched when a delegate WANTS to be considered. Say my servers are down instead of missing blocks and screwing up my stats - like it happened to me I could turn myself off for awhile
Delegate pays a fee which gets destroyed to toggle online presence or in fact set any attribute on their user.
So implement online presence for delegates and only pick from the ones that are running.
Also my proposal is for the numbers 101 and 1001 to be dynamically adjusted. You can start with 101/101 which is what you have right now
Quote from: bytemaster on July 22, 2014, 03:30:41 pmIn short you have not read the economics of the situation. Your proposal costs 10x as much for the network to operate. Because 1001 delegates need to be running in case they get selected, instead of 101? How is that different at the moment, all the pending candidates are running a node anyways.
In short you have not read the economics of the situation. Your proposal costs 10x as much for the network to operate.