BitShares Forum
Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: cube on March 18, 2015, 11:24:38 am
-
Are my eyes playing tricks on me?
-
Lots of delegates were upvoted recently.
~50m BTS stake voted recently for new delegates.
EDIT: more like 150m BTS
http://bitsharesblocks.com/blocks/block?id=2059244
http://bitsharesblocks.com/blocks/block?id=2059448
It says no votes in the transaction but they are accounted in the total votes...
-
I assume its not costumer funds held by yunbi .. otherwise they would miss there blocks .. would they?
Edit: could someone check if the vote has been a slate?
-
in fact the exchange can set up 101 delegates and vote all to themselves.
-
in fact the exchange can set up 101 delegates and vote all to themselves.
that's very dangerous... also, why do people keep bitshares with a 3rd party? unbelievable
-
in fact the exchange can set up 101 delegates and vote all to themselves.
that's very dangerous... also, why do people keep bitshares with a 3rd party? unbelievable
not so much ... we need people to trade it somewhere to have reliable price for BTS .. otherwise delegates couldn't derive price feeds ..
-
in fact the exchange can set up 101 delegates and vote all to themselves.
I can say for sure that Yunbi didn't do this , their server is already down .
And they said that they won't be delegates in the near future .
-
Whoever voted voted for blackwavelabs too. It doesn't seem to be a very well informed vote. :s
-
in fact the exchange can set up 101 delegates and vote all to themselves.
I guess we should expect BTS to take a huge price tumble now. It's centralized even worse than Bitcoin if this is true.
Whats going on here? Is it a scare tactic or is Bitshares really centralized around one exchange and possibly one person?
-
in fact the exchange can set up 101 delegates and vote all to themselves.
that's very dangerous... also, why do people keep bitshares with a 3rd party? unbelievable
Maybe it's a way to delegate their voting power indirectly to attack Bitshares?
Game theory would say this is bad.
Worse than mining pools.
-
in fact the exchange can set up 101 delegates and vote all to themselves.
I guess we should expect BTS to take a huge price tumble now. It's centralized even worse than Bitcoin if this is true.
Whats going on here? Is it a scare tactic or is Bitshares really centralized around one exchange and possibly one person?
No , it's not Yunbi's doing .
you can tell by just seeing their server is not even online ..
also I know this because Yunbi's holding is far less than this vote , so it couldn't be yunbi .
-
Whoever voted voted for blackwavelabs too. It doesn't seem to be a very well informed vote. :s
Ok thats interesting.. maybe this is someone testing the vote system to see what happens next.
-
in fact the exchange can set up 101 delegates and vote all to themselves.
that's very dangerous... also, why do people keep bitshares with a 3rd party? unbelievable
Maybe it's a way to delegate their voting power indirectly to attack Bitshares?
Game theory would say this is bad.
Worse than mining pools.
Game theory or not. This is an important issue and it needs to be addressed.
-
all dangers is because btc38 almost is the only exchange for BTS.
来自我的 HUAWEI P7-L00 上的 Tapatalk
-
if we have more exchanges , then we can be more relax .
-
Whoever voted voted for blackwavelabs too. It doesn't seem to be a very well informed vote. :s
Ok thats interesting.. maybe this is someone testing the vote system to see what happens next.
If he knows his action will drop the price then it is somebody he has many bitassets...
Sent from my ALCATEL ONE TOUCH 997D
-
I guess this is a result of trusting a "slate" , not necessary voted in these names intentionally .
If you trust a slate , then you'll be voting for whomever the slate is supporting .
-
Whoever voted voted for blackwavelabs too. It doesn't seem to be a very well informed vote. :s
Ok thats interesting.. maybe this is someone testing the vote system to see what happens next.
If he knows his action will drop the price then it is somebody he has many bitassets...
Sent from my ALCATEL ONE TOUCH 997D
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor
-
Electing delegates that are 100% pay but MIA is a good way to assure a large burn rate.
-
It appears to me to be a whale who had an old voting slate (with yunbi/blackwave) in it, transfered all their BTS to that account, but hasnt yet updated their votes intelligently.
It doesnt seem to be a malicious attack, because they are voting for almost all the same delegates as most of the rest of us, just with a few abnormal votes like yunbi/blackwave. At worst it is someoen voting in a couple paid delegates for themself.
The amount of stake they have is about 5%, given the jump in vote counts. The large amount of additional voting is actually a good thing in many ways, since it makes it harder for anyone else to attack.
I think the best course of action is to try to inform this person that they shouldnt be voting for old paid delegates like yunbi/blackwave that gave up on their projects and have been voted out by the community.
-
Electing delegates that are 100% pay but MIA is a good way to assure a large burn rate.
Well, it doesnt actually change the burn rate, if they replaced a lowpay delegate with an inactive one.
If they wanted to reduce burnrate they should elect a bunch of low pay delegates.
I note that toast's 1% paid delegate cutoff delegate is now elected, which is interesting.
Also, the amount of stake needed to control 51 delegates went up to over 13% (from about 10% I think). Thats a good thing.
We need to have a campaign for people to remove stake from exchanges and vote with it, for delegates they like.
-
10 BTS I say it's BM voting with an old slate
-
10 BTS I say it's BM voting with an old slate
That might be true.
If it is, it means BM wasnt voting at all in the recent past, beacuse the total vote counts have gone up when this happened.
-
I guess this begs a good question.. at what point do 'dead' delegates get trimmed from the network?
There are parameters to registering them, but are there any parameters to removing them? Or possibly some kind of countdown for which at a certain time of being offline they are just removed from the network? I would suggest something like 1 month perhaps.
I think the vote counts are going up because of everyone moving their BTS out of the exchanges.
-
Here are the new delegates who got elected because of this new vote:
d1.yunbi (100%)
d2.yunbi (100%)
www.bts-hk (100%)
btc38.com.crypto-exchange (3%)
btstools.digitalgaia (30%)
fund.bitsharesbreakout (100%)
paid-delegate-cutoff.misc.nikolai (1%)
btc38.com.btsx-exchange (3%)
(Aside from the yunbi votes, this looks totally fine to me. The btc38 delegates are just 3% delegates. The others are paid delegates that I'm voting for as well).
Here are still-not-elected delegates that gained a lot of support in this vote:
blackwavelabs
(This is indicative that its based on an old slate).
All of the voted out delegates are 3% delegates, so not really any controversy there.
The following paid delegates are not being voted for by this stake, and thus lost some position, but are still elected:
stan.delegate.xeldal 100%
delegate-dev4.btsnow 100%
delegate-dev3.btsnow 100%
backbone.riverhead (just a 10%)
fuzzy.beyondbitcoin 100%
dev0.theoretical 100%
dev.nathanhourt.com 100%
dev.sidhujag 100%
Also a variety of 3% delegates went down positions.
Looks like they downvoted half the dev team, and btsnow.
Nothing seems malicious about this, it looks like a whale voting. They need to be informed not to vote for yunbi and blackwave, aside from that they are choosing to vote for some reasonable paid delegates and not for other reasonable paid delegates, thats a choice that its their right to make.
-
I guess this begs a good question.. at what point do 'dead' delegates get trimmed from the network?
There are parameters to registering them, but are there any parameters to removing them? Or possibly some kind of countdown for which at a certain time of being offline they are just removed from the network? I would suggest something like 1 month perhaps.
I think the vote counts are going up because of everyone moving their BTS out of the exchanges.
Maybe there can be something like a 5% or 10% reduction in their applied vote count for every 30 days of inactivity. Now, how do you define inactivity?
-
I guess this begs a good question.. at what point do 'dead' delegates get trimmed from the network?
There are parameters to registering them, but are there any parameters to removing them? Or possibly some kind of countdown for which at a certain time of being offline they are just removed from the network? I would suggest something like 1 month perhaps.
I think the vote counts are going up because of everyone moving their BTS out of the exchanges.
Maybe there can be something like a 5% or 10% reduction in their applied vote count for every 30 days of inactivity. Now, how do you define inactivity?
I would define inactivity as simply not being connected to the network... server down.. offline. If a delegate has not maintained a server for 30 days then that's a good indication they are not coming back I would say. Or their commit isn't where it needs to be.
-
If a delegate isnt producing blocks, then that is a problem that should be handled by active voters.
-
The vote is likely from btc38 who moved their cold wallet balance from one account to another.
They recently moved 160 million bts.
They probably left the default vote option as "vote random set of delegates" when doing the transfer.
Who can confirm with them and have them reset the votes?
I suggest we remove "vote randomly" from the client. Because it is doing no good but just messing up things.
By default it should be "vote for nobody".
Having vote and transfer in the same operation is confusing. I always fear that if I got a typo in voting then all my balance will go to an unknown account. So I do not update my vote often.
-
The vote is likely from btc38 who moved their cold wallet balance from one account to another.
They recently moved 160 million bts.
They probably left the default vote option as "vote random set of delegates" when doing the transfer.
Who can confirm with them and have them reset the votes?
I suggest we remove "vote randomly" from the client. Because it is doing no good but just messing up things.
By default it should be "vote for nobody".
Having vote and transfer in the same operation is confusing. I always fear that if I got a typo in voting then all my balance will go to an unknown account. So I do not update my vote often.
We have a big problem here if btc38, or any exchange, whether intentionally or unintentionally, has such power to vote errand delegates into top positions.
-
Not sure its that big of a problem... the largest stake holders should have the greatest ability to elect the delegates they want. It would suck for everyone if they decided to play against their clients and elect delegates that harm the ecosystem, but that would seem very difficult and expensive to do. Once more people start voting, BTC38's impact won't matter that much.
-
I've contacted BTC38 , they did it by accident . They'll down vote them tomorrow
-
I've contacted BTC38 , they did it by accident . They'll down vote them tomorrow
Good job!
-
thanks yea i saw big down votes for myself and other delegates wonder what happened.
-
Thye mustve had an old slate.
-
what is the developer's take from this accident?
How should we improve the client to prevent it from happening unintentionally again?
In case some exchange do it intentionally in the future, what is the best reaction plan for all stake holders?