BitShares Forum
Main => Technical Support => Topic started by: xeroc on June 07, 2015, 04:20:14 pm
-
BitShares 2.0 Technologies
Stakeholder-Approved Project Funding
(http://bitshares.github.io/images/frontpage/icon-funding.svg)
A self-sustaining funding model
BitShares is designed to be self funding and self-sustaining by giving the stakeholders the power to direct where blockchain reserves are spent. BitShares has a reserve pool of 1.2 billion BTS (about $8 million dollars) that automatically grows as transaction fees are collected and the share price rises. Each day the blockchain is authorized to spend up to 432,000 BTS (about $77,000 per month); enough to hire a small team to maintain the network for years even with no price appriciation.
full length (http://bitshares.github.io/technology/stakeholder-approved-project-funding/)
-
Is the reserve pool new, or just part of the existing market cap?
-
Is the reserve pool new, or just part of the existing market cap?
These are the BTS that would have been created by dilution anyway ... but dilution rate does not change .. 50 BTS / 10 secs .. or 5BTS per sec ..
It's just a different presentation ..
-
Can workers get paid in MPAs?
-
I'm wondering what will be the practical hard limits on the number of delegates, witnesses, and worker proposals that an account can vote for.
I also worry that managing the worker proposals will be a little challenging. The order of the workers is very, very important in terms of who actually gets funding. But the voting process does not allow a user to represent the ranking they would like via their slate selection. Approval voting is great for the delegates and witnesses where the actual order is not as important (as long as you are in the top N), but I am wondering if there is potentially a better voting system for aggregating stakeholders' preferences for worker proposal rankings into a single global ranked list of worker proposals.
Also, I think it would be a huge improvement if worker proposals could specify daily payment in units of some BitAsset and the blockchain could use the daily moving average of the price feed of that BitAsset to dynamically calculate the amount of BTS to add to their account for that day (assuming the budget allows of course).
-
There are downvotes for delegates and workers .. just not for witnesses
-
There are downvotes for delegates and workers .. just not for witnesses
I am pretty positive this is not in the published documents. I should bribe you to tell me what else do you know :)
-
There are downvotes for delegates and workers .. just not for witnesses
There are downvotes for delegates? Can you link me to source for that?
So, I was thinking prior to any other complicated aggregation methods for workers, the worker voting system could instead use an additional signed byte along with each worker proposal ID in order to represent the extent to which the stakeholder wants to use their stake to vote for or against a worker proposal. So this would be more like range voting. A stakeholder could vote with 100% of their stake for a worker proposal or 100% against it (or anything in between with approximately 0.78% granularity), and similarly for all other worker proposals the stakeholder cared to vote for. The idea is that simply changing their votes with a single transaction is an easier and cheaper operation than making multiple accounts and splitting their stake between those accounts to achieve the same results.
The reason one might want to do this is because the stakeholder might prefer a worker ranking of A, B, then C, but the global ranking is A, C, then B. If there is only budget for the top two workers and B and C are close in ranking, it will be in the stakeholders advantage to change their vote to A and B only (taking away their vote for C, or perhaps even voting against C if downvoting is allowed) thus perhaps changing the global ranking to A, B, then C. The stakeholders might be repeatedly updating their votes playing games like this (at least it adds up fees to the network), but it will be much easier for stakeholders to get closer to their true preferences with the range voting modification I discussed above, rather than trying to hack it by splitting their stake among multiple accounts voting for different subsets.
Ideally, it would be nice to come up with a vote aggregation system that makes games like the one described in the above paragraph unnecessary. One could then just set their preferred ranking as part of their vote on the blockchain and the blockchain would effectively automatically adjust how much of the stakeholder's stake it uses to vote for or against worker proposals to try to get the global ranking as close to each of the stakeholders' recorded preferences as is possible given the constraints on the voting system. However, even if we were to come up with such an elegant vote system, it might not be computationally feasible (or just not desirable) to do the aggregation frequently enough so that vote updates do not have undesirably long delays before being reflected in the global worker rankings. So the range voting modification above would be good enough in that case.
-
There are downvotes for delegates and workers .. just not for witnesses
There are downvotes for delegates? Can you link me to source for that?
It seems it is not written anywhere officially .. maybe @vikram or @bytemaster can clarify this somewhere. ..
-
No down votes for delegates or witnesses.
-
No down votes for delegates or witnesses.
..
ah .. ok .. but still for workers ... I see ..
-
No down votes for delegates or witnesses.
How do you kick out malicious block producers?
-
No down votes for delegates or witnesses.
How do you kick out malicious block producers?
Vote for someone else with fewer votes and remove your votes for the malicious one.
-
Vote for someone else with fewer votes and remove your votes for the malicious one.
And if you had no votes for the malicious one?
-
Vote for someone else with fewer votes and remove your votes for the malicious one.
And if you had no votes for the malicious one?
Encourage those who do to remove them.
-
Same thing as now already ..
-
Same thing as now already ..
Right now you can down vote specific block producers.
-
Same thing as now already ..
Right now you can down vote specific block producers.
Not really
http://wiki.bitshares.org/index.php/DPOS/ApprovalVoting
If you "down vote" in your UI .. you basically just enforce the client to never ever approve that delegate no matter the slate you vote for ..
there is no "down vote" on the chain ..
-
Same thing as now already ..
Right now you can down vote specific block producers.
Not really
http://wiki.bitshares.org/index.php/DPOS/ApprovalVoting
If you "down vote" in your UI .. you basically just enforce the client to never ever approve that delegate no matter the slate you vote for ..
there is no "down vote" on the chain ..
Indeed. btw how's that vacation going? ;)