BitShares Forum
Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: Xeldal on July 21, 2014, 04:26:45 pm
-
2817 skynet 1.5786321227 % 112 2 98.25 % 100 % 171.16786 BTSX 20764
5284 deepbit 1.5786312836 % 86 1 98.85 % 100 % 157.52951 BTSX 20855
5283 slush 1.5786309162 % 82 3 96.47 % 100 % 150.18198 BTSX 20854
7155 bitfury 1.5786256690 % 19 0 100.00 % 100 % 45.25236 BTSX 20812
7159 ozcoin 1.5786256687 % 19 0 100.00 % 100 % 45.24676 BTSX 20810
7188 darkwallet 1.5786255496 % 18 0 100.00 % 100 % 42.86427 BTSX 20835
7168 zeroblock 1.5786255493 % 18 0 100.00 % 100 % 42.85980 BTSX 20850
7154 blockerupter 1.5786254310 % 17 0 100.00 % 100 % 40.49258 BTSX 20785
7152 bfl 1.5786254302 % 17 1 94.44 % 100 % 40.47807 BTSX 20846
7182 bitpoint 1.5786254302 % 17 1 94.44 % 100 % 40.47779 BTSX 20819
7177 ngzhang 1.5786254299 % 17 1 94.44 % 100 % 40.47054 BTSX 20849
7274 eligius 1.5786254297 % 17 0 100.00 % 100 % 40.46674 BTSX 20802
7161 tianhe 1.5786253123 % 16 0 100.00 % 100 % 38.11956 BTSX 20719
7276 cloudhashing 1.5786253106 % 16 1 94.12 % 100 % 38.08604 BTSX 20815
7277 bitcoinica 1.5786251921 % 15 1 93.75 % 100 % 35.71654 BTSX 20851
7273 p2pool 1.5786250739 % 14 1 93.33 % 100 % 33.35261 BTSX 20729
Clearly this is 1 person.
I'm a little Disgusted. >:(
-
Where are negative votes when you need them...
-
more of the same BS
8354 grue 1.4502068769 % 3 0 100.00 % 100 % 7.07166 BTSX 21668
8351 bitrick 1.4502068768 % 3 0 100.00 % 100 % 7.06998 BTSX 21733
8356 gmaxwell 1.4502068767 % 3 0 100.00 % 100 % 7.06847 BTSX 21738
8353 horserider 1.4502067591 % 2 0 100.00 % 100 % 4.71548 BTSX 21619
8346 cryptx 1.4502067590 % 2 0 100.00 % 100 % 4.71501 BTSX 21621
8350 ckolivas 1.4502067590 % 2 0 100.00 % 100 % 4.71498 BTSX 21637
8355 andresen 1.4502067590 % 2 0 100.00 % 100 % 4.71424 BTSX 21639
8349 sunnyking 1.4502067590 % 2 0 100.00 % 100 % 4.71412 BTSX 21666
8345 rockxie 1.4502067590 % 2 0 100.00 % 100 % 4.71360 BTSX 21701
8352 tysat 1.4502067590 % 2 0 100.00 % 100 % 4.71350 BTSX 21707
8347 hazek 1.4502067590 % 2 0 100.00 % 100 % 4.71343 BTSX 21667
8357 malevolent 1.4502067589 % 2 0 100.00 % 100 % 4.71303 BTSX 21697
8348 linode 1.4502066412 % 1 1 50.00 % 100 % 2.35834 BTSX 21538
-
more of the same BS
8354 grue 1.4502068769 % 3 0 100.00 % 100 % 7.07166 BTSX 21668
8351 bitrick 1.4502068768 % 3 0 100.00 % 100 % 7.06998 BTSX 21733
8356 gmaxwell 1.4502068767 % 3 0 100.00 % 100 % 7.06847 BTSX 21738
8353 horserider 1.4502067591 % 2 0 100.00 % 100 % 4.71548 BTSX 21619
8346 cryptx 1.4502067590 % 2 0 100.00 % 100 % 4.71501 BTSX 21621
8350 ckolivas 1.4502067590 % 2 0 100.00 % 100 % 4.71498 BTSX 21637
8355 andresen 1.4502067590 % 2 0 100.00 % 100 % 4.71424 BTSX 21639
8349 sunnyking 1.4502067590 % 2 0 100.00 % 100 % 4.71412 BTSX 21666
8345 rockxie 1.4502067590 % 2 0 100.00 % 100 % 4.71360 BTSX 21701
8352 tysat 1.4502067590 % 2 0 100.00 % 100 % 4.71350 BTSX 21707
8347 hazek 1.4502067590 % 2 0 100.00 % 100 % 4.71343 BTSX 21667
8357 malevolent 1.4502067589 % 2 0 100.00 % 100 % 4.71303 BTSX 21697
8348 linode 1.4502066412 % 1 1 50.00 % 100 % 2.35834 BTSX 21538
How do you realize that is the same person?
-
Can somebody explain what this means?
-
I can't be 100% sure, but the ID's are back to back so they were created near the same point in time, and the vote percentages are near exactly the same, indicating that the same stake likely has voted for all of them.
The names all follow a similar theme. They're all popular bitcoin businesses/mining pools/prominent bitcointalk usernames etc.
-
So someone has a big stake and votes for his own delegates?
-
I don't think this is a huge problem. As soon as the average delegate's approval goes above the largest stakeholder's stake, then there will be no point in voting all for your own delegates and this guy will start voting for who he thinks is best.
Just get more people to vote. We have like 1% of stake voting not counting the temporary AGS votes.
-
So someone has a big stake and votes for his own delegates?
Yes, and there's nothing wrong with that. But the use of popular names and businesses is disingenuous, and the intent is clearly to deceive.
-
So someone has a big stake and votes for his own delegates?
Yes, and there's nothing wrong with that. But the use of popular names and businesses is disingenuous, and the intent is clearly to deceive.
We have a plan for that with Follow My Vote :)
-
I would like to see this sorted out with tools and votes rather than punitive action. A truly open and decentralized system needs to be able to look after itself without a centralized authority. This is a great test of what this community can and will do.
-
there are a lot more than those... Actually, out of the 100 first delegates, a huge number seems disingenuous/dishonest... >:(
All the names/delegates that were present and active during the dry runs, who were people that were making bitshares a vibrant ecosystem have been relegated to rank > 100 and even > 200, while all the first spots have been taken by whoever voted for their +10 delegates. This is a blatant case of "the rich get richer", and these people will certainly not do anything for the network except collecting their fees and sit on it while the rest of us just get disappointed and disgusted...
I have to say that I missed the moment where the votes for a transaction go to *all* the delegates that are approved, I thought that they would be divided between the number of approved delegates in a wallet, or in a round-robin fashion, but in any case I was expecting that the total sum of votes would be 100%. This would mean that a whale could only upvote one of their delegate, or more of them but then the stake would have been divided by the number of voted delegates, which would have prevented the situation we have now.
Pushing it further, I can even see that those people with high stake and their big number of delegates could collude and get, say, all their 80 delegates active, each with 25% approval, and the rest of us can keep our few percents and weep. For me, I was always attracted to bitshares because I imagined a slate of 100 different delegates, each offering something different and contributing to the network either by writing code, promoting bitshares, donating to charities, ... and making the world a better place while still building an efficient and modern financial system. This vision is kinda slipping away right now...
In any case, I think the approval rating of delegates that we have now is flawed, and something needs to be done about it. I don't think the situation as it is now could be fixed, even if people with a huge stake would get involved (invictus?) because I feel this would just lead to a race to the top where most of delegates would all have > 50% and where the difference between delegates would not be significant enough and would not be very stable. Please tell me I'm wrong.
-
I think that it is too early to judge... the fact that someone with such a large stake is being deceitful is very troubling, but then again if the other 95% of stake holders got on board then it would clear up.
No system is perfect, especially one based on voting.
-
@wackou I think what you're missing is that this sort of behavior can only happen when the average delegate has lower approval than some individual's balance. Eventually what should happen is that even the lowest voted delegate has more approval than any individual has stake and so you can't just vote yourself in because you have to appeal to all stakeholders.
-
If only windows users were able to access the system. Seeing as microsoft is the most widely used OS, I'm sure once windows user can access bitshares x this will clear up. Till then, enjoy.
-
I have thrown some weight behind more delegates that are not clearly dishonest. (he is no longer an active delegate that I know of)
-
I think that it is too early to judge... the fact that someone with such a large stake is being deceitful is very troubling, but then again if the other 95% of stake holders got on board then it would clear up.
No system is perfect, especially one based on voting.
"Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." -- Winston Churchill, 11 November 1947
-
If only windows users were able to access the system. Seeing as microsoft is the most widely used OS, I'm sure once windows user can access bitshares x this will clear up. Till then, enjoy.
My primary wallet is running just fine on Windows 8.1.
-
If only windows users were able to access the system. Seeing as microsoft is the most widely used OS, I'm sure once windows user can access bitshares x this will clear up. Till then, enjoy.
My primary wallet is running just fine on Windows 8.1.
Several people have complained about windows 7. I have tried on two seperate computers. Event viewer errors and full blow debug has been posted. The problem is real.
-
If only windows users were able to access the system. Seeing as microsoft is the most widely used OS, I'm sure once windows user can access bitshares x this will clear up. Till then, enjoy.
My primary wallet is running just fine on Windows 8.1.
Several people have complained about windows 7. I have tried on two seperate computers. Event viewer errors and full blow debug has been posted. The problem is real.
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply the problem was a fabrication by a few people. Just that Windows isn't completely shut out for the few of us running Win8. I agree that Win7 is the primary OS most people use.
-
Wow, this was sorted out quickly! All mentioned delegates have been pushed out. Thank you to whoever was paying attention and had the ability to take action.
-
Wow, this was sorted out quickly! All mentioned delegates have been pushed out. Thank you to whoever was paying attention and had the ability to take action.
Seems whales can swim in all sorts of directions 8)
-
there are a lot more than those... Actually, out of the 100 first delegates, a huge number seems disingenuous/dishonest... >:(
All the names/delegates that were present and active during the dry runs, who were people that were making bitshares a vibrant ecosystem have been relegated to rank > 100 and even > 200, while all the first spots have been taken by whoever voted for their +10 delegates. This is a blatant case of "the rich get richer", and these people will certainly not do anything for the network except collecting their fees and sit on it while the rest of us just get disappointed and disgusted...
I have to say that I missed the moment where the votes for a transaction go to *all* the delegates that are approved, I thought that they would be divided between the number of approved delegates in a wallet, or in a round-robin fashion, but in any case I was expecting that the total sum of votes would be 100%. This would mean that a whale could only upvote one of their delegate, or more of them but then the stake would have been divided by the number of voted delegates, which would have prevented the situation we have now.
Pushing it further, I can even see that those people with high stake and their big number of delegates could collude and get, say, all their 80 delegates active, each with 25% approval, and the rest of us can keep our few percents and weep. For me, I was always attracted to bitshares because I imagined a slate of 100 different delegates, each offering something different and contributing to the network either by writing code, promoting bitshares, donating to charities, ... and making the world a better place while still building an efficient and modern financial system. This vision is kinda slipping away right now...
In any case, I think the approval rating of delegates that we have now is flawed, and something needs to be done about it. I don't think the situation as it is now could be fixed, even if people with a huge stake would get involved (invictus?) because I feel this would just lead to a race to the top where most of delegates would all have > 50% and where the difference between delegates would not be significant enough and would not be very stable. Please tell me I'm wrong.
The person that has voted for the deceiving names delegates acts against his own interest. If he/she has a big stake he/she would profit way more from a healthy network (without the deceiving names) through price appreciation than from the tiny fees he/she gets. It's kind of dumb.
Also the effect seems more dramatic because it is likely that with approval voting his delegates will either be all <100 or all be >100 because they all have the same percentage. With delegation voting he/she could bring in one or two delegates that are always among the top 100. Over time, if more participate, it is more likely that such an actor will be >100
-
@wackou I think what you're missing is that this sort of behavior can only happen when the average delegate has lower approval than some individual's balance. Eventually what should happen is that even the lowest voted delegate has more approval than any individual has stake and so you can't just vote yourself in because you have to appeal to all stakeholders.
That's correct, but then you kind of assume that people will vote for all the delegates they like, when in fact I believe most people will vote for only 1 or 2 (if at all). I know that voting has been discussed a lot in these forums, and I don't want to flog a dead horse, so let's leave it there for now. You're certainly right that I might have jumped to conclusions a bit early, we should let the network stabilize a bit more, and it looks like the situation has been kind of fixed for now. However it would be nice if we didn't need a benevolent dictator to fix the network when it starts going bad (I wouldn't mind if that benevolent dictator would be bytemaster, though, if there's one person that can be trusted to be it that's certainly him ;) )
-
yeah, I think the squatting issue is turning into a big deal since its identity names rather than asset names. I registerd "adam" but "adamblevine" was snagged pretty fast (before I realized the issue) and I definitely have concerns about it being used in scams, along with the rest of these names. If GMAXWELL requests you send donations to GMAXWELL on bitshares, why *wouldnt* that be gmaxwells account?
-
All I see are init delegates. Is there something wrong with my copy of the chain?
ID NAME (* next in line) APPROVAL PRODUCED MISSED RELIABILITY PAY RATE PAY BALANCE LAST BLOCK
============================================================================================================================
2 init1 0.0000000001 % 253 0 100.00 % 100 % 0.00171 XTS 25516
40 init39 0.0000000001 % 256 0 100.00 % 100 % 0.00173 XTS 25517
25 init24 0.0000000001 % 253 0 100.00 % 100 % 0.00170 XTS 25518
79 init78 0.0000000001 % 253 0 100.00 % 100 % 0.00170 XTS 25519
36 init35 0.0000000001 % 256 0 100.00 % 100 % 0.00174 XTS 25520
47 init46 0.0000000001 % 256 0 100.00 % 100 % 0.00173 XTS 25521
22 init21 0.0000000001 % 253 0 100.00 % 100 % 0.00170 XTS 25522
78 init77 0.0000000001 % 254 0 100.00 % 100 % 0.00172 XTS 25523
66 init65 0.0000000001 % 254 0 100.00 % 100 % 0.00171 XTS 25524
11 init10 0.0000000001 % 253 0 100.00 % 100 % 0.00170 XTS 25525
31 init30 0.0000000001 % 253 0 100.00 % 100 % 0.00170 XTS 25526
99 init98 0.0000000001 % 254 0 100.00 % 100 % 0.00171 XTS 25527
39 init38 0.0000000001 % 253 0 100.00 % 100 % 0.00170 XTS 25528
7 init6 0.0000000001 % 255 0 100.00 % 100 % 0.00172 XTS 25529
83 init82 0.0000000001 % 255 0 100.00 % 100 % 0.00172 XTS 25530
92 init91 0.0000000001 % 256 0 100.00 % 100 % 0.00173 XTS 25531
14 init13 0.0000000001 % 253 0 100.00 % 100 % 0.00170 XTS 25532
53 init52 0.0000000001 % 256 0 100.00 % 100 % 0.00173 XTS 25533
57 init56 0.0000000001 % 255 0 100.00 % 100 % 0.00172 XTS 25534
42 init41 0.0000000001 % 253 0 100.00 % 100 % 0.00170 XTS 25535
-
All I see are init delegates. Is there something wrong with my copy of the chain?
You are probably not on the correct network. For the real one, you shouldn't be getting it from the same repo as for the dry runs, but from there:
https://github.com/dacsunlimited/bitsharesx/releases
-
I have thrown some weight behind more delegates that are not clearly dishonest. (he is no longer an active delegate that I know of)
Well done!
Hmm, now the network has come to a consensus that *you can't be an active delegate unless you get approved by bytemaster*.
wait the funds to come in to the bitshares ecosystem and everything will change...
It is the beginning, please see the positive side of things, like security etc. It is better/importand for every new born baby to not get seek the first few weeks ;)
-
I have thrown some weight behind more delegates that are not clearly dishonest. (he is no longer an active delegate that I know of)
Well done!
Hmm, now the network has come to a consensus that *you can't be an active delegate unless you get approved by bytemaster*.
wait the funds to come in to the bitshares ecosystem and everything will change...
It is the beginning, please see the positive side of things, like security etc. It is better/importand for every new born baby to not get seek the first few weeks ;)
Definitely no.
I've already seen Chinese people joining in team to vote only for members in the team. When more funds come in, there will definitely be a team with more than 51%, much like what bytemaster's angel account's position (>51%) at the moment. When that happens, the network will be totally dominated by that team, just like what's happening right now that bytemaster is controlling all the delegates.
I think we should at least go back to discussing a better voting scheme: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=5895.0
Goomboo, easy on the FUD.
Like toast said, voting is at 1% - the system just needs some dilution. ...Take a teaspoon of salt and throw it in a glass of water and take a sip. Take a teaspoon of salt and throw it in a lake then take a sip.
BitShares is well on its way to becoming a Great Lake.
-
*In toast we trust*.
It's not just blind trust .. you can see that as long as bter.com does not enable widthdrawal .. the exchanges stake does simply not vote .. and its a bigger stake than AngelShares afaik
-
*In toast we trust*.
It's not just blind trust .. you can see that as long as bter.com does not enable widthdrawal .. the exchanges stake does simply not vote .. and its a bigger stake than AngelShares afaik
The majority of my BTSX is on bter waiting for the ability to withdraw. I'm sure my stake isn't that large compared to others on there. It's early days yet.
-
The majority of my BTSX is on bter waiting for the ability to withdraw. I'm sure my stake isn't that large compared to others on there. It's early days yet.
This do makes me cry... :-* :-* :-* :-*
Ask me why.