BitShares Forum
Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: toast on June 18, 2014, 03:28:39 pm
-
by popular request we are letting you have names for initial delegates for dry run 3.
Please give your name and key here.
But seriously it makes no difference, for the real thing we will call everyone "untrusted-delegate-do-not-vote-XX".
-
Here you are:
harvey-delegate-1:XTS7Bsi43JASDcPdgcLaXSLQ7mVNJReUvG4rcQYHHaJ3Ca7SLPYyq
harvey-delegate-2:XTS7qQScYbuFqsffgH6AammYXWMkZ9jSYdsYW21zguc2k2N3hYnfN
harvey-delegate-3:XTS6LDMYp9UNEYLUEdpCqx5dCEkWwrpP67LE5Zu3sSYqjP6LraqTW
harvey-delegate-4:XTS7fzyfX657vDUP4UVXRHNxCMZsGpCCGkvP7rN5NKkuEjktg5sHd
harvey-delegate-5:XTS7ze619FTgRReQsYEKYj8CbuiWB17q629gCz34Q7aeqe4yMida5
-
please add me ...thanks
NAME (* delegate) KEY REGISTERED TRUST LEVEL
myhometalk-04 XTS4wvHneoHeBxwsMH3YBfNidcWsfio6NWQMD9Twcx2guCb4TwniX NO 0
myhometalk-02 XTS8RhJ5ndiBQKzMCajHyqS91k4WiaoqanmJAFRcr1iHQVSeDaAt4 NO 0
myhometalk-01 XTS5JqeA3wKYh3PuqjtB8AWozv5qNTgGT6BZhnQCF3J6CHHh5RWqX NO 0
-
cgafeng-1: XTS8daF9rX4LiWghT2LbkV1ds2NtiZjEdCiXkkmP6ua3S6s2Vsx8n
cgafeng-2: XTS5Ta5J3zBqkCWDYK3gpKJPMqJ3k1LAa1G2fign37zwSqsboPHnc
-
delegate-alt-1: XTS57VJ3pc85WWJWCwNzPBcwNHEqHstavbhgFfHgc8nTmCchXGJAM
delegate-alt-2: XTS613zBdL38aPmLyMPtiTxKHnqiD7eiFZUsAFdVPzZmx4aZ8c8wq
delegate-alt-3: XTS5siws5HRdVw8XYjPtq1S2536ahueJXcrXsjhnk3PAffhpkYzZd
delegate-alt-4: XTS5iUxjeTmcdb2MrZBD32n73fLP1P1gBY4peWdaj1AZ6NrbBmr3y
-
NAME (* delegate) KEY REGISTERED TRUST LEVEL
pan2pan-05 XTS8T5M76CG8PFopcuSoAkvTfzkGhZMR44Dckd6JB5zYxxde1vqaU NO 0
-
But seriously it makes no difference, for the real thing we will call everyone "untrusted-delegate-do-not-vote-XX".
Why should you do that?
The delegates participating in the test runs are the best you/we have (at the moment in the universe?).
Anyone is free to register new delegate.
The initial delegates could start with insignificant amount of votes so that they can be voted out if they arent "good" enough.
What is the reasoning in naming them untrusted-delegate?
-
welk1n-d-1 : XTS6f8fzmUDQp63nTYgsA2GQtvFoPvKrmTmuhkCvQUCnKUJwxTxtx
welk1n-d-2 : XTS5urryfpdjZgwavKwufJ9A1d816LFaPbSQLu5eP2G76B7hbtuxj
welk1n-d-3 : XTS7p56UNQLyWc3NB2yeT4VVtYhanf6wFC356c6vbfpvQ9CHUmg6X
welk1n-d-4 : XTS7SDs7tmoYe96wjRzYqavAu4nehaMUTh3TbkGe9EPWNbA1P2XPA
welk1n-d-5 : XTS6z7aMnBmXi7qL9uHfgWS6d1wedEpvQNTrwgeGb8h1MH9WVXtRC
-
But seriously it makes no difference, for the real thing we will call everyone "untrusted-delegate-do-not-vote-XX".
Why should you do that?
The delegates participating in the test runs are the best you/we have (at the moment in the universe?).
Anyone is free to register new delegate.
The initial delegates could start with insignificant amount of votes so that they can be voted out if they arent "good" enough.
What is the reasoning in naming them untrusted-delegate?
That means which ones will be selected as delegates totally depends on the free market.
-
crazybit-delegate-1: XTS6WW9R3MPqcrWGtbJGaND8cqYnHxg5NLKGN9zS3Rhi8ABG9g49E
crazybit-delegate-2: XTS5f2Re8CGDBhPn6czvUXz19v5j4FfpDGFchyjgYojVx2Ky6XG7s
crazybit-delegate-3: XTS5uwTdLCLRABAYsRiZYWxaGhCA3WiBBfTweNZzPeUUj2kVNWJnC
crazybit-delegate-4: XTS6csN18wHp7pc2PCi6jaKhpCmZGcKGaFwfBEicNA8eZNrqVQAMA
crazybit-delegate-5: XTS6L9UYmcaP49fuhuiD8n1QuhCc7GEfJV7PnjSHP6cSX1gUzBcrL
thanks.
-
bdnoble-1 XTS82f63YBpbTRWz549eQbV3kReyyvxFdDH8hhCgYkACxv1qTNgaA
-
xeldal-1 : XTS5ttrjXKJPiWYm6EL7LAYRWV4GWnAaBPjGvkydy86yaKQdxTcHg
xeldal-2 : XTS8QLeHvaYQqFRdTP46EZq4GVdvj65Fp9wbKBGhBx5kvDnNFTDtM
xeldal-3 : XTS6whTVdWVb4KFvBDfKeawRjWPa6rsG5etsMvmg1MuybWhpVTf2u
xeldal-4 : XTS5iNWht2kEmdWNDf6cRz6HiVEs2zk3X61GpQvrQT1wQf66xucit
But seriously it makes no difference, for the real thing we will call everyone "untrusted-delegate-do-not-vote-XX".
If they will all be changed for the real run. Why do your directions suggest everyone create a new delegate with real name?
If you want to stay voted in, you should probably create a new delegate to campaign as, as a nameless initial delegate is unlikely to stay a delegate for long.
https://github.com/BitShares/bitshares_toolkit/wiki/DPOS-initial-delegate-setup
I think this is the only reason anyone even cares about the name at this point.
-
If they will all be changed for the real run. Why do your directions suggest everyone create a new delegate with real name?
Because people asked. And I didn't mean to create new names, just name any existing ones.
Man this is a mess, sorry for so much confusion. Will be much more clear for the real deal.
-
If they will all be changed for the real run. Why do your directions suggest everyone create a new delegate with real name?
Because people asked. And I didn't mean to create new names, just name any existing ones.
Man this is a mess, sorry for so much confusion. Will be much more clear for the real deal.
Your doing great Toast. Thank you for all of your work. Its appreciated. : )
-
testz1: XTS7TmBWefbLK7YHXUkt94SuxPksPSEpzqxcLY2ATgUYc3tK2en4h
testz2: XTS69fowDK5omSewZWFwms2BcjbsxRrjxHeZ78GQzWA8jpBDAjffx
testz3: XTS6wcaRaGviNzVdCdUYCdJywq283QRgbxcnSGGKZ9dhck96aQTzE
testz4: XTS8J1Anw53eW99eT3nipNVrx2E82P9p24Pbqz1KvgFPqenNXPPvS
testz5: XTS65uHPoa3x8x45Cf3ZHdS7Jkr2uSCfHotFsu3SgWaZDgjqBGNQr
-
domis-1 XTS8c3oGHR9XNSRPV9yYZspcPC2HMowrp6pyadyywpRMFeCSw94E8
-
by popular request we are letting you have names for initial delegates for dry run 3.
Please give your name and key here.
But seriously it makes no difference, for the real thing we will call everyone "untrusted-delegate-do-not-vote-XX".
Unless I'm missing something, all the delegates currently waiting in line don't have nearly enough shares to make any difference in the votes.... so many of the init-delegates have millions of vote points. How can any of them be voted out?
Seems like the only way is to market to some huge investors who have lots of shares. And how do we do that? The only ones I know of are 3I. And that is especially true for this dry run right? So who has all the fat stacks of XTS that wants to vote for me?!? :D
bdnoble-1 XTS82f63YBpbTRWz549eQbV3kReyyvxFdDH8hhCgYkACxv1qTNgaA
-
spartako-delegate-1: XTS6DDBA3URydxP2EPPtTwJ6JcSV28ut7ukN2HCVgrDuH4UCxF9Jv
spartako-delegate-2: XTS8LLDp6tZzh4bt5mBJXrigaff76xJCHzU1uqJrEryJpiZFcW3Ac
spartako-delegate-3: XTS7CGASnpNRTnfcqMhTTGAgbmpstVS3U3mWfHoAmwAXQaer7BvUD
spartako-delegate-4: XTS6o9KsYFpuPLQy9HCZGJrsxhnSFrv4DN4C3XNmb3kknFXikBBPP
spartako-delegate-5: XTS7xP4je99nWGnbNC2bKxNpTK5661iX4oLnj8Qije6KgxAWb5H5k
Thanks!
-
coolspeed-delegate-1 : XTS6DitjvvENF6Frfvb1jiUCNAGNwH6PMjYVEGCxAvV4cZXRVbwmp
coolspeed-delegate-2 : XTS7AeUKLhpn2J5rekbFdCt3xsJ5SznRL5bR5kEBT7JSbCB9AQFka
coolspeed-delegate-3 : XTS6uVAGPTgbrdVnx9b5qMRqoVakVBMZymVWWDJy6QmuMrDnySHmg
coolspeed-delegate-4 : XTS5kJVSkqGbPXUCfyz2kfXj6ZSBeV7xbXdhmBsJ8FQ8kjY4iANmM
coolspeed-delegate-5 : XTS7XDCb4BEeEtbPtHWGCvx9xW3r5SGTrHr8PjnH3VbhtUFWsjArm
-
Here is a proposal that sounds right to me:
1 Give all of the initial delegates the names they want
2 Assign the total trust to ALL initial delegates to no more than 0.01% of all shares
3 Assign ONE special untrusted-delegate with 99.99% of the votes and never enable it. (throw its private key into the deepest river you can find)
4 Let the people rule
Is there something wrong with the above ?
PS: I know how hard it is to organize everything. You are doing great job. Keep going.
PPS: If point 3 is difficult due to the max 2% per delegate you can use 50 special untrusted-delegates and destroy all their keys.
-
bitcoiners : XTS8eoFWByxKtGYzBrNF4diAhv1zjY7jGNTUv6PSqVGbQs8yi7nqk
bitcoiners-1: XTS77s4gRFvU1pdHYom1MvCw5bUAWu4oYVHLc4nB7pm6MmWWSxV44
bitcoiners-2: XTS5XBmXe6rxHhCncqxiQtNE9sX1csgdfMp86gxPa1iEEuyg9VwfK
bitcoiners-3: XTS5mKbpNi8Kvf89gueJcBW336M1ZQBgmdd17R5Wc7TXME8XRxKKE
blockchainer: XTS8UJQuLMhdpV5gUofc2ZDfUvYgPYboFPGag1rYGT3A2bkDGnx5y
-
I dont get it? I though you'd pick 101 delegates which already produced blocks successfully .. we have no idea which key in here can producr blocks ... so are those keys listed in the current testnet amd haveing votes considered potential init. Delegates or do i need to post my keys again and again?
-
You are supposed to just give names for existing keys... I will make a new thread when I get back
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
-
And yes you are in xeroc
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
-
So if i do nothing now you will select the name for each delegate? if so ... Pls remember that xeroc is registered as keyhotee founder ;)
-
My delegates
alexxy-delegate-1 XTS6ATqGY8ynvL7cqHsxCJYuNYRLX7Nyv9X51qT6MivTADt6dPMRc 2014-06-01T00:00:00 0
alexxy-delegate-2 XTS7wNbAFwpMerMszHjY7L3hGFmZtmS9MFGapcPQx7S5w7mBMBdrm 2014-06-01T00:00:00 0
alexxy-delegate-3 XTS5vTKdk2HX4GCBJ7HNHJk1fnRZao4mYRiJAU2462oGX9e2fcmaz 2014-06-01T00:00:00 0
alexxy-delegate-4 XTS6DhvyoGMM6GiEfQ7UbrXXKiQCnofCk9ZTdzTRdswtM3Ttx6Dvm 2014-06-01T00:00:00 0
alexxy * XTS6J5x1ArwBR5JAEK5eXfYmcTZsCccv9LdwMAEarQfRTSEgnEm5N 2014-06-01T00:00:00 100
PS alexxy is registered as keyhotee founder (hovever seems like it doesnt gain me any XTS after keyhotee import is it bug or not?)
-
PS alexxy is registered as keyhotee founder (hovever seems like it doesnt gain me any XTS after keyhotee import is it bug or not?)
Keyhotee is borked, I think we'll do manual distribution via a key controlled by i3
-
XTS6TMMu8B5MBEgj2kg9pGF8dzrWBtj5CpKHHQxM3x4EsvD4mJMUK should be named "init-delegate-1" (is currently init-delegate-1).
XTS7diW1nWPWrxkwuqXkwmxFN4qrQ7jyVNcRhqGqrriVvK2udynhD should be named "Angel" (is currently init-delegate-2).
XTS7bUdQ41J4vhNVBkmbqDKGiftrmQNrL1vCx881Fg4R2hE5r6P2Z should be named "Investor" (is currently init-delegate-3).
XTS6XtS7F5Fy3dUVSUKHJHN1dC66VaruRFkKmo8um6QB24Xsf2mzF should be named "Democratic" (is currently init-delegate-4).
XTS8ZhbpwEgwgV1gjCNrYfMDxsB6diofNtsg1m4yN62Zii1EwpK7B should be named "Gamble" (is currently init-delegate-25).
I'd be really happy to see some comments on this:
Here is a proposal that sounds right to me:
1 Give all of the initial delegates the names they want
2 Assign the total trust to ALL initial delegates to no more than 0.01% of all shares
3 Assign ONE special untrusted-delegate with 99.99% of the votes and never enable it. (throw its private key into the deepest river you can find)
4 Let the people rule
Is there something wrong with the above ?
PS: I know how hard it is to organize everything. You are doing great job. Keep going.
PPS: If point 3 is difficult due to the max 2% per delegate you can use 50 special untrusted-delegates and destroy all their keys.
-
delegate-heyd-1 XTS5Q7j3ZAYwjGAuK6AfWiqDuahnah9MVHXxGAr8yjsxWwuEAX9xg （delegate94）
delegate-heyd-2 XTS5K6TmQjqReTUhWMg3EBjQ26VB6r26jMn4r2VEG2ykWh2xFkUpP （delegate95）
delegate-heyd-3 XTS5HHx85ASdW3b4UmyV8g2rLyYRfHeTj8aH6E1DTE11jFUBr96as （delegate96）
-
btsjohn: XTS6sSu1DhZUxpnoLz1wYvwsowUQpa4zyHFkqo972fKnU6xrEKVx8 (was init-delegate-9)
btszhangwei:XTS7CoMc1xHodpiVYS8gukQRhmrpxaBEz7oMaUy434HBLbJegtFo1(was init-delegate-10)
btsjohn2:XTS7kcfTvho6h7juwajcNxBQA9rmiqd5iSFMZYywwbWRk9wqjo2Np(was init-delegate-11)
btszhangwei2:XTS6yyGEujvofqgQRfwvwWxMjZiFJwE4kBE1BpXtGpmhZ8aC58Dmb(was init-delegate-12)
Thanks.
-
Here is a proposal that sounds right to me:
1 Give all of the initial delegates the names they want
2 Assign the total trust to ALL initial delegates to no more than 0.01% of all shares
3 Assign ONE special untrusted-delegate with 99.99% of the votes and never enable it. (throw its private key into the deepest river you can find)
4 Let the people rule
Is there something wrong with the above ?
PS: I know how hard it is to organize everything. You are doing great job. Keep going.
PPS: If point 3 is difficult due to the max 2% per delegate you can use 50 special untrusted-delegates and destroy all their keys.
This sounds like a good idea. I'd modify it in that after shares start paying inactivity fees they should no longer vote, which means we need a no-vote state anyway, instead of generating fake delegates to sink votes.
-
I'm mobile and don't have my keys, but can you rename init-delegate-62 through 65 to Troglodactyl-delegate-1 through 4 please?
OLD NAME PUBLIC KEY NEW NAME
init-delegate-65 XTS8TouigRWFaQ8Bxt5YrPQJwR77RKFuCmbs5hTtuiQbzgNexwzef troglodactyl-delegate-4
init-delegate-64 XTS5EVghckGywFQL4StpqMiYEiRJvpSKBUUe35ePL4RMyDcwk97ko troglodactyl-delegate-3
init-delegate-63 XTS8aNGydnsjGn2YH7xEvocgYF2tC6zTnuLosqYJ9DyD9n3sfrxGC troglodactyl-delegate-2
init-delegate-62 XTS5DmPZBzrAxmQ5CQHQxfZ5fLWKVJ1kDvdqcBYbwBm7nuqBEcFX2 troglodactyl-delegate-1
-
We are going to initialize all initial delegates with 'negative votes' which will still result in them producing blocks until votes are allocated by shareholders to a share-holder approved vote.
-
We are going to initialize all initial delegates with 'negative votes' which will still result in them producing blocks until votes are allocated by shareholders to a share-holder approved vote.
That sounds good but what about the names? Will they be "untrusted-delegate-XX"?
-
We are going to initialize all initial delegates with 'negative votes' which will still result in them producing blocks until votes are allocated by shareholders to a share-holder approved vote.
That sounds good but what about the names? Will they be "untrusted-delegate-XX"?
We will probably say something like "unelected-yourusername-xx"
-
taoljj-delegate-1: XTS7xQtXcZuNn5RgyPdvtfsYAJXS8bysihvrCsvuNC6twdRNxPFA7
taoljj-delegate-2: XTS8NY1vLakvjzdJHmcia3CByapQJZCnNdk6hLMd1numLck6Tc9oc
taoljj-delegate-3: XTS6mqjSDW67NQSAwZ8Tq5Kctg2Xr8sky5VtZePUQASCZ8xf5ha7L
taoljj-delegate-4: XTS8U4v6VdxQehFqfVv5r4FN4mQKd1vTsAidbBRiMx617GdR4epVT
taoljj-delegate-5: XTS6Go5mzcJw4wBWkYmqz6ra2G1nJDVebcAuqocHmjKB7BfXTPF6S
-
We will probably say something like "unelected-yourusername-xx"
Well that is what i didnt like in the first place.
What is the reasoning in this?
Why not leave the names as is? They have low votes and the stake decides what should happen?
You have enough stake to do whatever you want anyway.... at least in the beginning.
-
We will probably say something like "unelected-yourusername-xx"
Well that is what i didnt like in the first place.
What is the reasoning in this?
Why not leave the names as is? They have low votes and the stake decides what should happen?
You have enough stake to do whatever you want anyway.... at least in the beginning.
Because those people didn't get voted in, they are all chosen pretty much arbitrarily. It's to emphasize we are not endorsing them and they are just there as a consequence of the fact that you need *some* initial delegates.
-
puppies XTS8djaCmGAU6VhQ6Ri1VEyr187cVaYar62if72rvTtUwNkvPCvqG
2puppies XTS6s5vsTDMJm429keEXJi4RSAHhgm2mf6GGuV7LnKvZYfPMeXFS1
3puppies XTS5LGPcabhmv2Y3rpT5YP1Ba8nUFoU1P2GFrth81Za9TFV78EjBc
4puppies XTS8UTxLFKWaL2aFLxhwNC9C1JnTRrtDSpKTeAvB9yqNavVfFRkQ1
Or just leave them as init-delegate-13-16
-
betax * XTS8E7T1qxvfWKVZtq9HBZ8Nmv8RUSxwksukhCx3gcGEKenZN3bfh
betax1 XTS73dBszwFUwiTvJQLgcMEBJ8Wx4KJFQuRpsMQADQMMX5Vhtujc5
betax2 XTS8PYVQwRme5bRsQ1q8eufQaRfKyrBJ8ZNWoVRRGuptA2bL8w8rc
betax3 XTS7Tvq8YS4s6ch9BoAGs8dXEZov2UDfGcN5KhmU1UzgYiSXW5ovy
Thanks that's great!
These are not init delegates btw, I missed the first week. :(
-
Because those people didn't get voted in, they are all chosen pretty much arbitrarily. It's to emphasize we are not endorsing them and they are just there as a consequence of the fact that you need *some* initial delegates.
Sounds reasonable. I just didn't like the negativism in "untrusted".
-
denkhaus-delegate-1: XTS6snqX6msDPGuk6V8W5AXDtpaLLFUAjUFjM7LSSqyx7D9zJ65PY
denkhaus-delegate-2: XTS6v9Dt9Yz4XyMaiQLzKqS7V2LwVMj2KYHL7Bqeg7f7QEaRb7CHR
denkhaus-delegate-3: XTS5fXuqAN8cSpkmGaf4vSGA2fgojch2ZF5PcSxqnx2yw7sZ8rWGW
denkhaus-delegate-4: XTS7LV8XA8cXPb5y7DBGqdDMV8sV2cXsdimCq3oxPvwm3heHa67jY
denkhaus-delegate-5: XTS8kAZ2CG1WF1gSPpRLNH1Sx9ggYX1s3QEQ5fBYU6gQjpvhMwMCj
thanks
-
boombastic-ags: XTS8Eso3RfRDQviSKuQxhWL9hQCQ7siaZPbDzYULxcat1d1ncdhu1
boombastic-d1: XTS6AP3ZtBT6sv9fZ2c5nmuLzsG6MNgczvBbCqdwsjCfg5BuzadKw
boombastic-d2: XTS82M4MbX3Gd6Vo46SUZLYe7pCNtNJCuEyqebB41wD1hP4X6gq1M
boombastic-d3: XTS8KJLiTawftAfutXbKGwuAasJvpeaJo8YxykdudWyWKBm4wHqop
boombastic-d4: XTS86TZiNBDvUgGq2im1mfWSVEoGGzMuPJAy971KGYuxYqSYQJrgQ
Thanks.
-
who can send my some XTS
thank you very much
XTS6g8JzHR9WFixKjXTw3vwN54KE3Bf4kbLjBKUcw7i9yEzzD1aj4
-
Same as betax I did not arrive home in time to be part of the previous delegate batch and have been running a highly connected node instead, but if possible could you add these:
joeyd-d1: XTS7xm5K6cVv8y7dowzjTBLTwWBXQDVvKHsU3a5qDhcUSwvcwjV4u
joeyd-d2: XTS549hCkKyf4UM7rNEeF7Q83CBYdetx3smujtX2FazXTDoWnyuDW
joeyd-d3: XTS5iaa34ikXpLArVrk7wjSEwjpU9fUCznW3bSynuYGtm6xvT2Xdp
joeyd-d4: XTS5a5SrAWoXzUvDmtL4CZcYYLwSkJJk3ch2a9RNzDNERCogZZPY4
joeyd-d5: XTS671QbNrgCy945UDPRmDPf3ARQaP6vHBXAH25mt1oB5QRsrwaLS
Btw, is it possible to use a different datadir for the client apart from the usual .Bitshares\ XTS one?
-
Same as betax I did not arrive home in time to be part of the previous delegate batch and have been running a highly connected node instead, but if possible could you add these:
joeyd-d1: XTS7xm5K6cVv8y7dowzjTBLTwWBXQDVvKHsU3a5qDhcUSwvcwjV4u
joeyd-d2: XTS549hCkKyf4UM7rNEeF7Q83CBYdetx3smujtX2FazXTDoWnyuDW
joeyd-d3: XTS5iaa34ikXpLArVrk7wjSEwjpU9fUCznW3bSynuYGtm6xvT2Xdp
joeyd-d4: XTS5a5SrAWoXzUvDmtL4CZcYYLwSkJJk3ch2a9RNzDNERCogZZPY4
joeyd-d5: XTS671QbNrgCy945UDPRmDPf3ARQaP6vHBXAH25mt1oB5QRsrwaLS
Btw, is it possible to use a different datadir for the client apart from the usual .Bitshares\ XTS one?
use --data-dir yournewdatadir
-
We will probably say something like "unelected-yourusername-xx"
Well that is what i didnt like in the first place.
What is the reasoning in this?
Why not leave the names as is? They have low votes and the stake decides what should happen?
You have enough stake to do whatever you want anyway.... at least in the beginning.
Yes I don't see the difference. If everyone has to create another delegate anyway just leave the names as they are. init-delegate or uneletected, same thing. The point of picking a name was to avoid the mess of everyone needing to recreate another delegate and compete with themselves for a spot, but it seems we will have to do this anyway. I say just leave it.
-
We will probably say something like "unelected-yourusername-xx"
Well that is what i didnt like in the first place.
What is the reasoning in this?
Why not leave the names as is? They have low votes and the stake decides what should happen?
You have enough stake to do whatever you want anyway.... at least in the beginning.
Yes I don't see the difference. If everyone has to create another delegate anyway just leave the names as they are. init-delegate or uneletected, same thing. The point of picking a name was to avoid the mess of everyone needing to recreate another delegate and compete with themselves for a spot, but it seems we will have to do this anyway. I say just leave it.
The primary thing we are trying to avoid is giving the initial delegates undo advantage of votes from those who lost their keys, donated from an exchange, or are too lazy to get involved. For this reason starting all votes as 'negative' votes means that the real names with real votes will get in priority over those we assign. It also removes any accusations of bias in initial delegate selection.
Changing the name to be 'unelected-your-name-x' allows people to see your performance and thus vote for 'your-name-x'.
We could give you just 'your-name-x' but if we start you out with negative votes from passive users it may end up poorly for you.
-
The primary thing we are trying to avoid is giving the initial delegates undo advantage of votes from those who lost their keys, donated from an exchange, or are too lazy to get involved. For this reason starting all votes as 'negative' votes means that the real names with real votes will get in priority over those we assign. It also removes any accusations of bias in initial delegate selection.
Changing the name to be 'unelected-your-name-x' allows people to see your performance and thus vote for 'your-name-x'.
We could give you just 'your-name-x' but if we start you out with negative votes from passive users it may end up poorly for you.
Thanks for the explanation!
One more thing... I've seen somewhere comments about enabling "no-vote" state. Isn't this contrary to the idea in the DPOS whitepaper? Will this be implemented?
Here is the quote in question:
This sounds like a good idea. I'd modify it in that after shares start paying inactivity fees they should no longer vote, which means we need a no-vote state anyway, instead of generating fake delegates to sink votes.
-
The primary thing we are trying to avoid is giving the initial delegates undo advantage of votes from those who lost their keys, donated from an exchange, or are too lazy to get involved. For this reason starting all votes as 'negative' votes means that the real names with real votes will get in priority over those we assign. It also removes any accusations of bias in initial delegate selection.
Changing the name to be 'unelected-your-name-x' allows people to see your performance and thus vote for 'your-name-x'.
We could give you just 'your-name-x' but if we start you out with negative votes from passive users it may end up poorly for you.
I think your doing the right thing. This sounds good. I was concerned that we would be competing with ourselves to get a real name in to a spot but with the negative votes, as you've explained, clears this up. Thank you.
Will a new delegate with 0 votes push out an init-delegate with negative votes?
-
The primary thing we are trying to avoid is giving the initial delegates undo advantage of votes from those who lost their keys, donated from an exchange, or are too lazy to get involved. For this reason starting all votes as 'negative' votes means that the real names with real votes will get in priority over those we assign. It also removes any accusations of bias in initial delegate selection.
Changing the name to be 'unelected-your-name-x' allows people to see your performance and thus vote for 'your-name-x'.
We could give you just 'your-name-x' but if we start you out with negative votes from passive users it may end up poorly for you.
I think your doing the right thing. This sounds good. I was concerned that we would be competing with ourselves to get a real name in to a spot but with the negative votes, as you've explained, clears this up. Thank you.
Will a new delegate with 0 votes push out an init-delegate with negative votes?
Yes