对bitusd的需求不能转变成对BTS的需求，相反bitusd需求越大，爆起仓来对BTS砸得越狠。BTS和bitusd永远是相对的两方，没有办法互相扶持，最终只能互相拖累。

Quote from: bigcat on May 01, 2015, 04:06:23 pm

Quote from: BTSdac on May 01, 2015, 03:13:51 pm

Quote from: bigcat on April 30, 2015, 07:24:28 pm

Quote from: BTSdac on April 30, 2015, 04:15:59 am

  比如一个公司,如果控制51%的股份,就会完全控制这个公司, 比如BTC哪个矿池拥有51%的算力就可以控制BTC,
这个没有什么好讨论的

控制比特股不需要控制所有受托人，只要控制51个就够了。目前第50名的票数是10.8%，也就是说谁掌握11%股份就可以把50名以后的受托人都换掉。之后整个网络就完全被控制了。想把下去的受托人再选上来？人家已经控制了51个受托人，可以拒绝你的选票。这51个受托人就可以永远当下去了。需要的只是11%股份，不是51%。

先去看看DPOS 原理再来说，
只要有一个人是诚实的 ，网络都是可靠的，

你说的是随机数吧？这里说的可不是随机数可靠不可靠的问题。

控制51%的委托人 不能阻止别人投票

控制了51%受托人还有什么干不了的？你想花你自己的钱他都可以不让你花。他只要设定忽略所有投别人票的交易，让系统分叉好了，最后还是他的那个分叉得到承认。

  比如一个公司,如果控制51%的股份,就会完全控制这个公司, 比如BTC哪个矿池拥有51%的算力就可以控制BTC,
这个没有什么好讨论的

控制比特股不需要控制所有受托人，只要控制51个就够了。目前第50名的票数是10.8%，也就是说谁掌握11%股份就可以把50名以后的受托人都换掉。之后整个网络就完全被控制了。想把下去的受托人再选上来？人家已经控制了51个受托人，可以拒绝你的选票。这51个受托人就可以永远当下去了。需要的只是11%股份，不是51%。

Quote from: bigcat on April 30, 2015, 03:22:07 am

Isn't down vote unavailable since long time ago? Without down vote, to fire someone you have to vote everyone else up, not something that most people will do. Also, small fish never do the same thing at the same time. Even if they realize something needs to be done, some will do and some will wait. It either takes long time or is simply impossible to effectively fire someone with high votes.

And you didn't answer how to prevent a whale from controlling large number of delegates. Without a effective way of preventing this, it's useless to fire one single bad delegate, because we have to vote up others who are actually the same person.

If you explore the delegates on bitsharesblocks you can see that negative down voting is alive and kicking.

There is a clear effort being made by some select people to down vote 100% delegates indiscriminately. Their transactions show up consistently. My best guess is it's some anti-dilution folks.

In the client just click three times on the vote hand to go from approve to neutral to down

It currently takes over 200 million bts to be voted into the 101. If others down vote then a whale can't do anything to control.

It's the right AND responsibility of every citizen to own their stake.

Look at this: http://wiki.bitshares.org/index.php/DPOS/ApprovalVoting#Voting_in_General
Down vote simply revokes your previous votes, but doesn't have a negative effect. If you have never voted a delegate, you have nothing to revoke.

In real life you know X people are different. Behind the monitor you never know that. X accounts could be only 1 real person behind them.

If one has 50% shares, he can make himself all 101 delegates whatever others do. Currently one only needs 25% to achieve this because nobody gets more than 25% votes. Actually the percentage needed to monopoly is much less. Considering that the current 101th delegate has about 8% votes, it is hard not to suspect that all the current 101 delegates could be actually controlled by 1 who occupies more than 8% bitshares or very few people combining together. This is definitely not decentralization.

Why not make 1 share voted to only 1 delegate? Was there any discussion about this before? If it is difficult to implement or use, a simpler version can be to share the vote. Say 1 share is voted to n delegates, each should get 1/n votes instead of 1. I feel this would be more fair and to the point of decentralization. A whale can probably control a few delegates but that's fine. Permitting a whale to control all or majority of delegates is not the correct idea. There must be improvements.

一直不是很清楚选票的问题。好像每一股都可以投给任意多个人？那样的话假如一个人有50%的股份，就可以自己注册101个代表，把票投给自己，保证每一个都是前101。事实上不用50%那么多，只要有25%，就能把目前的101人都挤下去，而且只要有11%，从目前数据看就可以保证占有超过半数的席位。
如果每一股只能投给一个人，是否更合理？

DNS呢? VOTE呢？到底有什么合并进来了？除了总量增加了5亿，功能完全没有增加。钱包功能无论好坏都是虚的，但DNS，VOTE应该是有实际功能的，也就是有实际价值的。必须把DNS, VOTE功能实现出来，否则当初的合并就是欺骗。