BitShares Forum
Main => Stakeholder Proposals => Topic started by: alphaBar on August 27, 2014, 06:03:58 am
-
Some criteria I use for selecting delegates (in order of importance):
1) Has the delegate revealed their realworld identity?
Exposing your identity is the single biggest deterrent to doing anything malicious.
2) What is their history/reputation in the community and forums?
Important, ideally in conjunction with #1.
3) Are they technically competent?
The client is not yet resilient enough to be managed by non-technical delegates. Delegates should be scripting their price feed updates and missed block notification, and should be able to react swiftly to attacks on the network.
4) Are they running more than 1 delegate?
I refuse to vote more than 1 delegate per person. Furthermore, if a person has more than a couple of delegates in the top 101 I will do my best to vote them ALL out. It is harmful and should be discouraged.
5) What is their payrate and usage of funds?
Obvious, but not terribly important.
Based on these criteria I think the quality of delegates needs to improve.
-
So far, the following delegates have revealed their identity:
- user: liondani, delegate: delegate.liondani, verification: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=6406
- user: maqifrnswa, delegate: maqifrnswa, verification: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=5938
- *user: GaltReport, delegate: delegate1-galt, verification: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=6041.0
- user: bdnoble, delegate: bdnoble, verification: http://bitshares.org/community/team/
- user: CoinHoarder, delegate: delegate.coinhoarder, verification: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=7722.msg102736#msg102736
- user: emski, delegates: lotto.bitdelegate or angel.bitdelegate, verification: https://www.linkedin.com/in/emilvelichkov
- user: amencon, delegate: alecmenconi, verification: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/alec-menconi/47/685/a42
*offered identity verification to I3
If you are willing to reveal your identity, please do so here and list your delegate. PM me if you'd like to modify/remove this info.
-
How do you verify identity?
-
I agree with criteria 2 to 5. I would like to agree with criterion 1 as well, but I question how much value it actually adds. It brings up emski's question:
How do you verify identity?
The candidate could post a YouTube video where they say their full name, country of residence, and delegate account name in clear view of the camera. But how would we know that is the real delegate and not some actor an attacker hired to act as the person behind one of the attacker's many sockpuppet delegates?
It seems to me that pseudonyms with community trust built over time is good enough.
-
Great, such a discussion enhances the quality and security of DPOS considerably.
Whether identity has been verified sufficiently is up to the voters. Public identity makes sense long term imo since a delegate would risk his overal reputation if the scam is revealed (if someone points out that the picture belongs to someone else).
-
I suppose public identities could work if we could actually have face to face discussions with the delegate to understand that they really are community members and have the technical know-how.
And that doesn't have to be done in person. We could use Hangouts on Air, or even Mumble after associating the delegate's voice to their voice in the YouTube video.
But there is also the other question of whether having the identity of a delegate publicly known (and thus also known to attackers) would make the system less secure.
-
I suppose public identities could work if we could actually have face to face discussions with the delegate to understand that they really are community members and have the technical know-how.
And that doesn't have to be done in person. We could use Hangouts on Air, or even Mumble after associating the delegate's voice to their voice in the YouTube video.
But there is also the other question of whether having the identity of a delegate publicly known (and thus also known to attackers) would make the system less secure.
There are other ways, such as gpg web of trust. That's how I verified my identity, at least within the crypto and open source community.
-
It would be great to have web of trust built into the BitShares client (and blockchain) directly.
-
It would be great to have web of trust built into the BitShares client (and blockchain) directly.
The real power lies with DPOS plus Toast's KeyID efforts!
Agree with But there is also the other question of whether having the identity of a delegate publicly known (and thus also known to attackers) would make the system less secure.
don't realy know what is the better side of this trade of.
-
I refuse to vote more than 1 delegate per person. Furthermore, if a person has more than a couple of delegates in the top 101 I will do my best to vote them ALL out. It is harmful and should be discouraged.
I agree with your focus on reputation.
I disagree about refusing to vote for anyone running multiple delegates.
I think it is helpful if very trusted members of the community run more than one delegate as a candidate (at least until we have more than 101 great delegate candidates). They should be named in a clear way to make it obvious they are all related (use sub accounts). They should also be clearly ordered by priority so if you are only going to vote for one of their delegates you vote for delegate "1".
for example:
1.alphaBar -> this is your primary delegate, encourage people to vote for this one if they only want you to have one delegate.
2.alphaBar -> this is your secondary, if someone really trusts and likes you a lot they may vote for both your primary and secondary delegate.
3.alphaBar -> this is your tertiary
If it gets very competitive and we have lots of great candidates and we don't allow more than 101 delegates (I prefer a dynamic number) than it could get to the point where few if any would be able to get more than their primary delegate elected. But, I don't think we should judge people negatively for running multiple delegate candidates in a transparent way. If someone was caught trying to run sockpuppets without being upfront then that is a problem and a trust issue.
-
If you are willing to pledge to never run more than 1 delegate and/or to reveal your identity, please do so here and list your delegate.
as I said on my thread also, I have concluded that the best for all of us is one delegate per individual...
1.more secure network
2.more decentralized
3.fair for the standby delegates
4.Don't give the chance to the competitors/haters to accuse us to be too centralized!
I want your votes only for one delegate:
delegate.liondani
and vote out my delegates liondani & liondani-delegate-1 please ;)
So yes I promise to have only 1 delegate at any point of time after delegate.liondani get's active in place of my "old" ones ;)
My identity is revealed as alphabar already mentioned. https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=6406.0
-
If it gets very competitive and we have lots of great candidates and we don't allow more than 101 delegates (I prefer a dynamic number) than it could get to the point where few if any would be able to get more than their primary delegate elected. But, I don't think we should judge people negatively for running multiple delegate candidates in a transparent way. If someone was caught trying to run sockpuppets without being upfront then that is a problem and a trust issue.
1.I prefer a dynamic number of delegates also.
2.I thing we have allready enough great candidates but the most are in standby mode because candidates with much vote power have multiple delegates voted in...
3.We must consider that the competition will use the multiple delegate phenomena in a negative way...It's a shame to give them such an oportunity. So we must in a consensus way self regulate
"our delegate election policy" :P
4.It is better* to have 101 individual delegates active with an average reliability of 90% (for example) then 65 individual delegates that have all 100% reliability... Am I missing something?
*not for security only but for marketing/image reasons also...
-
In fact, it increases the chance for bad stake to vote many of his delegates into the top 101 by a lot if shareholders vote for anything less than 101 delegates .
Under the conditions of approval voting it is more beneficial to the network if all 101 votes are split among a handful of delegates you trust than to vote only for a few single delegates.
-
I refuse to vote more than 1 delegate per person. Furthermore, if a person has more than a couple of delegates in the top 101 I will do my best to vote them ALL out. It is harmful and should be discouraged.
I agree with your focus on reputation.
I disagree about refusing to vote for anyone running multiple delegates.
I think it is helpful if very trusted members of the community run more than one delegate as a candidate (at least until we have more than 101 great delegate candidates). They should be named in a clear way to make it obvious they are all related (use sub accounts). They should also be clearly ordered by priority so if you are only going to vote for one of their delegates you vote for delegate "1".
for example:
1.alphaBar -> this is your primary delegate, encourage people to vote for this one if they only want you to have one delegate.
2.alphaBar -> this is your secondary, if someone really trusts and likes you a lot they may vote for both your primary and secondary delegate.
3.alphaBar -> this is your tertiary
If it gets very competitive and we have lots of great candidates and we don't allow more than 101 delegates (I prefer a dynamic number) than it could get to the point where few if any would be able to get more than their primary delegate elected. But, I don't think we should judge people negatively for running multiple delegate candidates in a transparent way. If someone was caught trying to run sockpuppets without being upfront then that is a problem and a trust issue.
+5%
Your post sums up perfectly how I feel about this, and your example is almost exactly how my delegates are set up.
I don't see how providing multiple highly reliable delegates is harmful, especially when it's obvious that they're from the same person through the use of sub accounts.
-
In general, I'm for only one delegate per person - but the rules right now almost force you to get more than one:
1) you're not allowed to raise rates and 2) you're not allowed to "turn off" delegates without voting them out.
Therefore, if you want a dynamic payrate that follows the market, you have to have more than one delegate set up like liondani did.
I also think that someone with reliable two delegates well below the average delegate payrate is better than have two people with two different delegates with 100% payrates.
It would be best if there is only one, but the rules of the game give you incentives to have more than one.
-
I don't see how providing multiple highly reliable delegates is harmful, especially when it's obvious that they're from the same person through the use of sub accounts.
Theoretical maybe you are right...But practical it would harm the network in my opinion...
To make an extreme example with your logic...
Let's suppose the most reliable and trusted delegates right now are the "init" delegates...
That means it would be ok to have 101 "init" delegates active...
...do you see now the consequences?
The same consequences, not at the same scale of-course, would apply for examples not so extreme but with identical logic?
-
I don't see how providing multiple highly reliable delegates is harmful, especially when it's obvious that they're from the same person through the use of sub accounts.
Theoretical maybe you are right...But practical it would harm the network in my opinion...
To make an extreme example with your logic...
Let's suppose the most reliable and trusted delegates right now are the "init" delegates...
That means it would be ok to have 101 "init" delegates active...
...do you see now the consequences?
The same consequences, not at the same scale of-course, would apply for examples not so extreme but with identical logic?
the opposite of that:
Imagine two separate delegates each with a 1% payrate. For whatever reason, expenses are larger than cost. They cannot raise rates, so both turn off both nodes. The network loses two active delegates at the same time. It would have been better if both were controlled by the same person, they could consolidate the delegates to single machine, temporarily, as a way to keep things running in a dry spell.
it would be best if there were two nodes run by two separate people that could bump their rates to 2% and keep running - but the rules don't allow that.
-
I only run 1 delegate id, and my info see my signature.
-
I don't see how providing multiple highly reliable delegates is harmful, especially when it's obvious that they're from the same person through the use of sub accounts.
Theoretical maybe you are right...But practical it would harm the network in my opinion...
To make an extreme example with your logic...
Let's suppose the most reliable and trusted delegates right now are the "init" delegates...
That means it would be ok to have 101 "init" delegates active...
...do you see now the consequences?
The same consequences, not at the same scale of-course, would apply for examples not so extreme but with identical logic?
I don't think that's the same though, the init delegates are anonymous but supposedly controlled by Dacsunlimited, however they don't use subaccounts and should get phased out as the network grows and more reliable delegates emerge.
I'm fairly certain noone would ever get voted in using 51 or even 10 delegates using the same account with subaccounts, and that's why it is important to use subaccounts. This is also why it's important to vote for delegates that you know who are, whether it be by their real identity as some of you prefer, or their forum handle in my case. In my opinion the main thing is that you have to be able to tie the delegate to a person.
Everyone should know by now that I control the "x.svk31" delegates, so if you prefer to only vote for the main one please do so. Since I'm using sub accounts you won't mistakenly vote for another delegate controlled by me just because it's already in the top 101 and has high reliability.
-
The link to my linkedin profile is public and visible through my forum user details.
-
I would appreciate your votes. I have no problem revealing my identity. My participation is a bit low right now, but that is because I've only been a delegate for a couple days. I made a silly error on the first day and missed 8 blocks which gave me 0% participation <facepalm.jpg>. I fixed the problem and my participation has increased to above 90%.. it should get better as I am keeping a close eye on my VPN and updating price feeds regularly. I have good trust in the Bitcoin and Litecoin community, and have been operating Bitcoin/Litecoin mining farms for about two years now so I am more than capable of operating a delegate. My pay rate is 75%, no charities or anything at the moment! but I am helping out in other ways around the forums as much as possible. Along with telling people about Bitshares on Bitcointalk on my main thread and defending it on others: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=225659.0
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
You can tie my identity to my login by running a "whois" on my business' domain: cryptovest.com and with the following information.
I am Coinhoarder from Bitcointalk.org aka. William E Connatser III
I have signed with this PGP signature multiple times, including here on Bitcointalk when confirming the addresses of the Cryptovest 'special edition' coins:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=286027.msg5667149#msg5667149
You can also see my name in the "about us" page of my website a bit below the text "why choose us":
https://cryptovest.com/about-us/
I own the Coinhoarder account on bitsharestalk.org, and my only BitsharesX delegate is delegate.coinhoarder
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32)
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJT/iupAAoJEGh5rAmFxx58cg4IAJKRTRhTIbFliQz5RSeT603M
x74HNBW5k0u8dhoaI4oggOpty0GrsiZ4cFHcQxOZHzrie7S2Q/uB0dxW0jfQ6HAA
Th++LhFICSUNvelw5yL4cmpOzCuNIOZwGLxzubOaahJug76IbR617VdcKyPoDuKz
jn/wsV0FNsiGqJN+jNiIUuxQE6AjxZw8cOhlaNN1kc+iHMTM2FmjvDL1DssoXe3f
KbaT8zt/rpzp2TMK+cZLLrngJQ4Xl3Tldisrlc4AmS3TadrNmuf7gjabgucvIpX1
s2JuV0DZ2ZeHYcsAF12SaYfo2UutDi9dAAI2xQwbha/ypzR+BZ0mRCh44fC0wUg=
=iske
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
PGP Key: https://cryptovest.com/40F0E7A9D5FBE20F16DE80E86879AC0985C71E7C.asc
-
I only run 1 delegate id, and my info see my signature.
If you'd like to reveal your realworld ID to be added to the list please let me know.
-
How do you verify identity?
There are many different forms and degrees of verification. Each person should provide whatever info they are comfortable with and voters can decide if that is sufficient. I've added verification links for each delegate who has provided ID information.
-
Only 1 delegate and info on the signature. This is why I combine charity, lottery and some revenue. I will reveal my identity in time if necessary, but everybody should know me as I have been here for a while, helping when possible.
-
Only 1 delegate and info on the signature. This is why I combine charity, lottery and some revenue. I will reveal my identity in time if necessary, but everybody should know me as I have been here for a while, helping when possible.
*confirmed*
-
Only 1 delegate and info on the signature. This is why I combine charity, lottery and some revenue. I will reveal my identity in time if necessary, but everybody should know me as I have been here for a while, helping when possible.
*confirmed*
me2
-
Only 1 delegate and info on the signature. This is why I combine charity, lottery and some revenue. I will reveal my identity in time if necessary, but everybody should know me as I have been here for a while, helping when possible.
I decided to maintain only those who have offered to reveal their identity in my original list, since there is no way to verify how many delegates a person is running. That being said, I did vote for you based on your reputation.
-
Whats the worst thing a malicious delegate could do? Double sign blocks? not include transactions? Change their clock settings to cause others to miss blocks? Stop producing blocks all together? Are there worse things that I just don't know about?
All of these things are readily apparent on the blockchain, and can be dealt with if / when they come up. Isn't the point of DPOS to set the level of centralization at an acceptable point so that no single delegate can do any real harm?
For these reasons I think your criteria #1 and #2 are way overvalued. In fact I think their only worth is to help us determine if #4 and #5 are met.
My criteria is as follows
#1 Performance.
Do they double sign blocks? Do they miss blocks? Are they including transactions known to be broadcast? Are they including market transactions that weren't broadcast?
#2 Are they running more than one delegate
Even in the short term I am opposed to individuals or groups running multiple delegates. Look what happens when a node running one of these multi delegates goes down. Long term I think it is even more important that we ensure geographical and political distribution of our delegates. To prevent both collusion and coercion.
#3 What is their pay rate and have they proven that they deserve it
At this point running a seed node and a delegate server should take up around 50% of fees. What are you spending your fees on, and how does that benefit me more than them being destroyed? Can you prove it?
4# Reputation.
Both online and in RL. Most important, do they have a history of theft, graft, violence, or collusion with violent organizations? This is not in regards to running a delegate node, I just think its a good idea overall. There is nothing you could do as a single delegate that would lead me to either call the cops, or come to your house. Other than in reference to #2 and #3 above. I don't care who you are.
#5 engagement level.
Are they reading the forum, upgrading on time, and keeping a close eye on their delegate node? This will all show up in results. I only mention it because you didn't
#6 Technical ability
This will also be directly measurable in the results. Incompetent delegates will not last long.
Perhaps I'm in the minority but I think we are over politicizing what should be and in reality is a very simple job. I think politics is a much greater threat to our ability to stay safe and decentralized than a couple of malicious delegates getting in from time to time.
-
Whats the worst thing a malicious delegate could do? Double sign blocks? not include transactions? Change their clock settings to cause others to miss blocks? Stop producing blocks all together? Are there worse things that I just don't know about?
All of these things are readily apparent on the blockchain, and can be dealt with if / when they come up. Isn't the point of DPOS to set the level of centralization at an acceptable point so that no single delegate can do any real harm?
For these reasons I think your criteria #1 and #2 are way overvalued. In fact I think their only worth is to help us determine if #4 and #5 are met.
My criteria is as follows
#1 Performance.
Do they double sign blocks? Do they miss blocks? Are they including transactions known to be broadcast? Are they including market transactions that weren't broadcast?
#2 Are they running more than one delegate
Even in the short term I am opposed to individuals or groups running multiple delegates. Look what happens when a node running one of these multi delegates goes down. Long term I think it is even more important that we ensure geographical and political distribution of our delegates. To prevent both collusion and coercion.
#3 What is their pay rate and have they proven that they deserve it
At this point running a seed node and a delegate server should take up around 50% of fees. What are you spending your fees on, and how does that benefit me more than them being destroyed? Can you prove it?
4# Reputation.
Both online and in RL. Most important, do they have a history of theft, graft, violence, or collusion with violent organizations? This is not in regards to running a delegate node, I just think its a good idea overall. There is nothing you could do as a single delegate that would lead me to either call the cops, or come to your house. Other than in reference to #2 and #3 above. I don't care who you are.
#5 engagement level.
Are they reading the forum, upgrading on time, and keeping a close eye on their delegate node? This will all show up in results. I only mention it because you didn't
#6 Technical ability
This will also be directly measurable in the results. Incompetent delegates will not last long.
Perhaps I'm in the minority but I think we are over politicizing what should be and in reality is a very simple job. I think politics is a much greater threat to our ability to stay safe and decentralized than a couple of malicious delegates getting in from time to time.
+5% +5% +5%
-
Whats the worst thing a malicious delegate could do? Double sign blocks? not include transactions? Change their clock settings to cause others to miss blocks? Stop producing blocks all together? Are there worse things that I just don't know about?
All of these things are readily apparent on the blockchain, and can be dealt with if / when they come up. Isn't the point of DPOS to set the level of centralization at an acceptable point so that no single delegate can do any real harm?
For these reasons I think your criteria #1 and #2 are way overvalued. In fact I think their only worth is to help us determine if #4 and #5 are met.
My criteria is as follows
#1 Performance.
Do they double sign blocks? Do they miss blocks? Are they including transactions known to be broadcast? Are they including market transactions that weren't broadcast?
#2 Are they running more than one delegate
Even in the short term I am opposed to individuals or groups running multiple delegates. Look what happens when a node running one of these multi delegates goes down. Long term I think it is even more important that we ensure geographical and political distribution of our delegates. To prevent both collusion and coercion.
#3 What is their pay rate and have they proven that they deserve it
At this point running a seed node and a delegate server should take up around 50% of fees. What are you spending your fees on, and how does that benefit me more than them being destroyed? Can you prove it?
4# Reputation.
Both online and in RL. Most important, do they have a history of theft, graft, violence, or collusion with violent organizations? This is not in regards to running a delegate node, I just think its a good idea overall. There is nothing you could do as a single delegate that would lead me to either call the cops, or come to your house. Other than in reference to #2 and #3 above. I don't care who you are.
#5 engagement level.
Are they reading the forum, upgrading on time, and keeping a close eye on their delegate node? This will all show up in results. I only mention it because you didn't
#6 Technical ability
This will also be directly measurable in the results. Incompetent delegates will not last long.
Perhaps I'm in the minority but I think we are over politicizing what should be and in reality is a very simple job. I think politics is a much greater threat to our ability to stay safe and decentralized than a couple of malicious delegates getting in from time to time.
Let's say theoretically a single attacker or a group of attackers with multiple active delegates collude to take control of the network by performing a coordinated DDOS of other active delegates. Correct me if I'm wrong but if you own ALL active delegates for even a very short consecutive time period (~17 minutes max) you can take over block generation completely and exclude all other active delegates from producing blocks indefinitely by manipulating random number generation. During this short period of time, you could selectively exclude transactions (though TaPOS would presumably prevent you from wholesale shutdown of the network). I'm not even sure it would be possible to vote you out in such a scenario. In fact, the attacker could in theory exclude all transactions that vote their delegates out and continue to include all other transactions to maintain control (and to vote their own delegates up). Not sure about the feasibility of doing this, but if my assumption is correct - mainly the assumption that producing an uninterrupted sequence of 101 blocks can allow you to take complete control of the network - then the results would be pretty disastrous. Even if it were possible to "vote out" these delegates once they are in control, there would be significant damage. If we implement a dependency on median price feeds the situation could be even worse. the attacker could walk away with a MASSIVE amount of money if they were able to control the median feed (there would be little recourse in this situation). These are only the probably flawed and initial thoughts of an amateur. I'm sure there are other attack vectors that we can't foresee right now. The point is, I think this argument about delegates not being able to do anything malicious is the worst worst worst message to convey. If Bitshares became a dominant currency, extremely well-funded and sophisticated attacks would be incentivized and executed by entities with both financial and other motivations. Choose your delegates carefully.
-
Thanks for responding. I'm at work right now and don't have time for a thorough response. In short though, I don't think your attack would work since there is no way to forge votes. If you went into the attack with five delegates you would come out with five delegates. It would be destructive, but no more destructive than a ddos attack by an outside actor.
What we should really be worried about is that with 1.15 billion btsx claimed from genesis less than a third of that is currently voting. And over half of that is controlled by bm.
-
P.s. I also think we should be very careful selecting delegatesI just have different criteria. I think most of it can be determined on block chain.
-
Exposing your realword identity is the single biggest deterrent to doing anything malicious. If you support this flawed assumption that it is "impossible" to do anything malicious then I guess you can worry more about 99.9% uptime vs. 99.85% uptime. But if security is your objective then there is nothing more important than realworld identity. As a delegate, if your pseudonym or online reputation is worth less to you than the potential bounty of an attack then we have no recourse against you. If we know your real identity then you will also think about jail time or worse (a much stronger deterrent).
Edit: unnecessary quotes
-
Thanks for responding. I'm at work right now and don't have time for a thorough response. In short though, I don't think your attack would work since there is no way to forge votes. If you went into the attack with five delegates you would come out with five delegates. It would be destructive, but no more destructive than a ddos attack by an outside actor.
What we should really be worried about is that with 1.15 billion btsx claimed from genesis less than a third of that is currently voting. And over half of that is controlled by bm.
It's not about "forging" votes. It's about excluding votes in favor of other delegates when you are in control of block production. If you are the only one voting then you have 100% of the votes. Votes don't count if they don't make it into a block.
-
Whats the worst thing a malicious delegate could do? Double sign blocks? not include transactions? Change their clock settings to cause others to miss blocks? Stop producing blocks all together? Are there worse things that I just don't know about?
All of these things are readily apparent on the blockchain, and can be dealt with if / when they come up. Isn't the point of DPOS to set the level of centralization at an acceptable point so that no single delegate can do any real harm?
For these reasons I think your criteria #1 and #2 are way overvalued. In fact I think their only worth is to help us determine if #4 and #5 are met.
My criteria is as follows
#1 Performance.
Do they double sign blocks? Do they miss blocks? Are they including transactions known to be broadcast? Are they including market transactions that weren't broadcast?
#2 Are they running more than one delegate
Even in the short term I am opposed to individuals or groups running multiple delegates. Look what happens when a node running one of these multi delegates goes down. Long term I think it is even more important that we ensure geographical and political distribution of our delegates. To prevent both collusion and coercion.
#3 What is their pay rate and have they proven that they deserve it
At this point running a seed node and a delegate server should take up around 50% of fees. What are you spending your fees on, and how does that benefit me more than them being destroyed? Can you prove it?
4# Reputation.
Both online and in RL. Most important, do they have a history of theft, graft, violence, or collusion with violent organizations? This is not in regards to running a delegate node, I just think its a good idea overall. There is nothing you could do as a single delegate that would lead me to either call the cops, or come to your house. Other than in reference to #2 and #3 above. I don't care who you are.
#5 engagement level.
Are they reading the forum, upgrading on time, and keeping a close eye on their delegate node? This will all show up in results. I only mention it because you didn't
#6 Technical ability
This will also be directly measurable in the results. Incompetent delegates will not last long.
Perhaps I'm in the minority but I think we are over politicizing what should be and in reality is a very simple job. I think politics is a much greater threat to our ability to stay safe and decentralized than a couple of malicious delegates getting in from time to time.
Let's say theoretically a single attacker or a group of attackers with multiple active delegates collude to take control of the network by performing a coordinated DDOS of other active delegates. Correct me if I'm wrong but if you own ALL active delegates for even a very short consecutive time period (~17 minutes max) you can take over block generation completely and exclude all other active delegates from producing blocks indefinitely by manipulating random number generation. During this short period of time, you could selectively exclude transactions (though TaPOS would presumably prevent you from wholesale shutdown of the network). I'm not even sure it would be possible to vote you out in such a scenario. In fact, the attacker could in theory exclude all transactions that vote their delegates out and continue to include all other transactions to maintain control (and to vote their own delegates up). Not sure about the feasibility of doing this, but if my assumption is correct - mainly the assumption that producing an uninterrupted sequence of 101 blocks can allow you to take complete control of the network - then the results would be pretty disastrous. Even if it were possible to "vote out" these delegates once they are in control, there would be significant damage. If we implement a dependency on median price feeds the situation could be even worse. the attacker could walk away with a MASSIVE amount of money if they were able to control the median feed (there would be little recourse in this situation). These are only the probably flawed and initial thoughts of an amateur. I'm sure there are other attack vectors that we can't foresee right now. The point is, I think this argument about delegates not being able to do anything malicious is the worst worst worst message to convey. If Bitshares became a dominant currency, extremely well-funded and sophisticated attacks would be incentivized and executed by entities with both financial and other motivations. Choose your delegates carefully.
Exposing your realword identity is the single biggest deterrent to doing anything malicious. If you support this flawed assumption that it is "impossible" to do anything malicious then I guess you can worry more about 99.9% uptime vs. 99.85% uptime. But if security is your objective then there is nothing more important than realworld identity. As a delegate, if your pseudonym or online reputation is worth less to you than the potential bounty of an attack then we have no recourse against you. If we know your real identity then you will also think about jail time or worse (a much stronger deterrent).
That's assuming that I'm a u.s. citizen. I haven't faked my presumed real world identity. What I have done is considered a crime. And that it can somehow be traced to my delegate.
To be honest, a greater deterrent would be the fact that any attack would destroy the currency and thus any profit I could hope to make from it.
I personally am more concerned about attacks motivated by reasons other than monetary gain (at least on network). Such as your described ddos attack carried out by an outside actor. Perhaps to increase the value of their holdings in another currency.
Releasing real world identity helps us ensure that a) there is only 1 delegate per person and b) if they are taking profits they are earning the profits.
In short I think the largest dangers with delegates are collusion and coercion. While it's possible that knowing delegates real world identities will help prevent collusion it almost certainly increases our chances of coercion.
If I could be 100% certain that every single delegate was controlled by a unique individual, I wouldn't care if they were all run through tor. In fact In that case I think it would be better if they were.
-
Whatever your criteria is - what matters is the criteria of (big) shareholders (: .
-
Whatever your criteria is - what matters is the criteria of (big) shareholders (: .
True, but not many of them seem to be voting yet.
-
Exposing your realword identity is the single biggest deterrent to doing anything malicious. If you support this flawed assumption that it is "impossible" to do anything malicious then I guess you can worry more about 99.9% uptime vs. 99.85% uptime. But if security is your objective then there is nothing more important than realworld identity. As a delegate, if your pseudonym or online reputation is worth less to you than the potential bounty of an attack then we have no recourse against you. If we know your real identity then you will also think about jail time or worse (a much stronger deterrent).
Edit: unnecessary quotes
I understand your reasoning here but this should be strictly voluntary. Some people (like myself) value their privacy and security HIGHLY and you can actually endanger people by "Doxing" (exposing their identify or other personally identifiable information) them and I am against that. This information can be used to attack them, their systems, their family, friends and their finances.
Governments for one are very fond of gathering information on people for "good reason" as well. Trust them, it's all for our own good!!
I have experienced this first hand on multiple levels which is why I am immediately suspicious of ANYONE who trys to identify other people online and I keep my eyes on those people. :)
If you are on any forum that I participate in, I am keeping track of EVERYONE who asks people for Personally Identifiable Information (PII). You are on MY LIST. :) "Give us your name, address, what kind of system, how much BTSX do you have etc..." Sure I will, NOT!! I AM WATCHING YOU (two fingers from my eyes to YOU). :) Watch the Watchers!
It is no joke to me. This is also why I (legally) carry. ;)
Nevertheless, I have offered to identify myself to BM & Stan anytime since they are not far from me.
-
Exposing your realword identity is the single biggest deterrent to doing anything malicious. If you support this flawed assumption that it is "impossible" to do anything malicious then I guess you can worry more about 99.9% uptime vs. 99.85% uptime. But if security is your objective then there is nothing more important than realworld identity. As a delegate, if your pseudonym or online reputation is worth less to you than the potential bounty of an attack then we have no recourse against you. If we know your real identity then you will also think about jail time or worse (a much stronger deterrent).
Edit: unnecessary quotes
I understand your reasoning here but this should be strictly voluntary. Some people (like myself) value their privacy and security HIGHLY and you can actually endanger people by "Doxing" (exposing their identify or other personally identifiable information) them and I am against that. This information can be used to attack them, their systems, their family, friends and their finances.
Governments for one are very fond of gathering information on people for "good reason" as well. Trust them, it's all for our own good!!
I have experienced this first hand on multiple levels which is why I am immediately suspicious of ANYONE who trys to identify other people online and I keep my eyes on those people. :)
If you are on any forum that I participate in, I am keeping track of EVERYONE who asks people for Personally Identifiable Information (PII). You are on MY LIST. :) "Give us your name, address, what kind of system, how much BTSX do you have etc..." Sure I will, NOT!! I AM WATCHING YOU (two fingers from my eyes to YOU). :) Watch the Watchers!
It is no joke to me. This is also why I (legally) carry. ;)
Nevertheless, I have offered to identify myself to BM & Stan anytime since they are not far from me.
Your childish response adds nothing of value to the conversation, and I'm offended that you would imply that I don't value privacy. Of course there is no doxxing and the ID part is voluntary - nobody implied otherwise. This is exactly why I am not a delegate and probably will not be one anytime soon. I am not willing to expose my identity, but I will only vote for delegates whose realword identity I know. No contradiction there. I think of being a delegate as a business decision. It has risks and it has potential rewards. If you are not willing to accept those risks you will forego the reward.
The beauty of DPOS is that we only need about 100 people who are willing to accept those risks. Many of them are already publicly involved in crypto (e.g., Dan, Adam Levine, maybe Andreas A in the future, etc). Delegates in DPOS will converge on public and widely trusted personalities such as these. For you to imply that I am doxxing people or urging them to reveal their identity shows that you either completely misunderstood my point or you misunderstand the incentives and risks involved in DPOS. I am a shareholder and I need to protect my investment by voting for delegates I can trust, not some pseudonymous account on a website with nothing to lose. Get it?
-
Exposing your realword identity is the single biggest deterrent to doing anything malicious. If you support this flawed assumption that it is "impossible" to do anything malicious then I guess you can worry more about 99.9% uptime vs. 99.85% uptime. But if security is your objective then there is nothing more important than realworld identity. As a delegate, if your pseudonym or online reputation is worth less to you than the potential bounty of an attack then we have no recourse against you. If we know your real identity then you will also think about jail time or worse (a much stronger deterrent).
Edit: unnecessary quotes
I understand your reasoning here but this should be strictly voluntary. Some people (like myself) value their privacy and security HIGHLY and you can actually endanger people by "Doxing" (exposing their identify or other personally identifiable information) them and I am against that. This information can be used to attack them, their systems, their family, friends and their finances.
Governments for one are very fond of gathering information on people for "good reason" as well. Trust them, it's all for our own good!!
I have experienced this first hand on multiple levels which is why I am immediately suspicious of ANYONE who trys to identify other people online and I keep my eyes on those people. :)
If you are on any forum that I participate in, I am keeping track of EVERYONE who asks people for Personally Identifiable Information (PII). You are on MY LIST. :) "Give us your name, address, what kind of system, how much BTSX do you have etc..." Sure I will, NOT!! I AM WATCHING YOU (two fingers from my eyes to YOU). :) Watch the Watchers!
It is no joke to me. This is also why I (legally) carry. ;)
Nevertheless, I have offered to identify myself to BM & Stan anytime since they are not far from me.
Your childish response adds nothing of value to the conversation, and I'm offended that you would imply that I don't value privacy. Of course there is no doxxing and the ID part is voluntary - nobody implied otherwise. This is exactly why I am not a delegate and probably will not be one anytime soon. I am not willing to expose my identity, but I will only vote for delegates whose realword identity I know. No contradiction there. I think of being a delegate as a business decision. It has risks and it has potential rewards. If you are not willing to accept those risks you will forego the reward.
The beauty of DPOS is that we only need about 100 people who are willing to accept those risks. Many of them are already publicly involved in crypto (e.g., Dan, Adam Levine, maybe Andreas A in the future, etc). Delegates in DPOS will converge on public and widely trusted personalities such as these. For you to imply that I am doxxing people or urging them to reveal their identity shows that you either completely misunderstood my point or you misunderstand the incentives and risks involved in DPOS. I am a shareholder and I need to protect my investment by voting for delegates I can trust, not some pseudonymous account on a website with nothing to lose. Get it?
I am also a shareholder and vote!! I don't think you know or care very much about about what people have to lose or have lost, other than yourself perhaps.
The beauty of these systems in my opinion is that they should be able to be secured via technology/cryptography not by personalities.
Knowing someone (or more likely, thinking that you do) does not make them or the system secure or trustworthy!!
I know who George Bush is, John McCain, Barack Obama, Ben Bernanke are....Do I trust them because they are out kissing babies and giving speeches?
F**k NO!!
Has knowing who these people are deterred them from screwing people? One of the prime motivations of many of the pioneers of this field has been to AVOID HAVING TO TRUSTING PEOPLE with your PII.
BTW, If you have no bad intentions that's great. No worries then.
-
I also massively oppose requiring delegates to provide their real life identities. It straight up goes against the point of titan, and comes across as heavily suspicious why you're so interested in this information. Btsx is in an extremely grey area legally, no doubt it will be under the gaze of governments before long, and I don't want to be dragged away and thrown into guantanamo Bay for hosting a decentralized banking/exchange system. Anyone demanding real life information should first provide their own real life Id to prove they don't work for an intelligence agency/government.
-
So far, the following delegates have revealed their identity:
...
If you are willing to reveal your identity, please do so here and list your delegate. PM me if you'd like to modify/remove this info.
Could you please add my delegate to the list? I have only one delegate and there is an introduction page here : https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=8204.msg107400#msg107400
-
I also massively oppose requiring delegates to provide their real life identities. It straight up goes against the point of titan, and comes across as heavily suspicious why you're so interested in this information. Btsx is in an extremely grey area legally, no doubt it will be under the gaze of governments before long, and I don't want to be dragged away and thrown into guantanamo Bay for hosting a decentralized banking/exchange system. Anyone demanding real life information should first provide their own real life Id to prove they don't work for an intelligence agency/government.
I believe this is a very valid concern for many people. There are also those who like to keep their privacy from some strangers who may disturb (eg stalking, spamming) their real life in person. On the other hand, the bitshare community needs to know their voted delegates are reliable and do not suddenly 'disappear'. Perhaps one approach is for the delegate candidate to provide information that the community can use to access his/her reputation and/or track records. What do you think?
-
Please add me to your list alphaBar, delegate alecmenconi. If you'd like other verification provided then please ask. My delegate name is just my first and last name.
Here is my introduction post: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=8163.0
I fully support anyone that values their privacy and wants to keep their identity hidden. Everybody can use the system anonymously but if enough people want verification of identities of their delegates then they will vote out those delegates unwilling to cooperate which also seems perfectly fair.
-
I also massively oppose requiring delegates to provide their real life identities. It straight up goes against the point of titan, and comes across as heavily suspicious why you're so interested in this information. Btsx is in an extremely grey area legally, no doubt it will be under the gaze of governments before long, and I don't want to be dragged away and thrown into guantanamo Bay for hosting a decentralized banking/exchange system. Anyone demanding real life information should first provide their own real life Id to prove they don't work for an intelligence agency/government.
I believe this is a very valid concern for many people. There are also those who like to keep their privacy from some strangers who may disturb (eg stalking, spamming) their real life in person. On the other hand, the bitshare community needs to know their voted delegates are reliable and do not suddenly 'disappear'. Perhaps one approach is for the delegate candidate to provide information that the community can use to access his/her reputation and/or track records. What do you think?
Something we really need to research is the impact that one delegate can actually have on the network.
It takes 51% of the network hashrate to attack POW, and 51% of the coins to attack POS.
It's my understanding that DPOS is far more secure than both of these systems.
If I had 5 delegates, with 100% reliability and no/few missed blocks, I don't see how I could overpower or corrupt/hurt the network. But if it was possible, what is the impact that a malicious user could have?
Perhaps we should really focus on only voting for delegates who have a really strong candidate campaign, who run services related to btsx (verification of id from site/twitter to here), and vote out those who have nothing to lose if they were to do something bad?
I'm looking into creating 4 delgates, and I don't think having 4/101 delegates is a negative thing. If i'm hosting them around the world on a powerful cloud provider and I have 99-100% reliability then I don't see the problem, especially if i have a very strong campaign and begin to create services for btsx to prove that I am not malicious.
-
I also massively oppose requiring delegates to provide their real life identities.[...]
Either you are trolling or you have horrible reading comprehension. Please show me where anyone proposed making this a requirement??? As mentioned in nearly every single post in this thread: we are talking about VOLUNTARY information. Your concerns about providing realworld identity are valid and as I stated previously, I SHARE THOSE CONCERNS. This is why I am not a delegate. Please stop distorting the positions of other people and spreading misinformation. People like YOU are on my radar...
All of that being said, I place a heavy emphasis on identity verification in who I vote for. Identity matters. As an example, imagine the guys who run BTC-E (anonymously) decide to shut down their site and walk away with millions of dollars in deposits. As a depositor, what recourse do you have without knowing their identity??? Now, imagine we already knew their real-world identities. How likely are they to try anything malicious? Are they more likely or less likely? Common sense.
-
So far, the following delegates have revealed their identity:
...
If you are willing to reveal your identity, please do so here and list your delegate. PM me if you'd like to modify/remove this info.
Could you please add my delegate to the list? I have only one delegate and there is an introduction page here : https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=8204.msg107400#msg107400
All I see is your first name. I'm not specifying what needs to be disclosed to be included in the list, but I think it should be more than that (see what others have done). I think it would also be worth offering I3 to perform the verification somehow (if they are willing). They can comment here if that's an option.
-
1/Reputation on this forum, but identification is not necessary, because leaking personal information of delegates may result in more specific attack from hackers.
2/technical competence
3/pay rate, contribution to community
4/ Although a strong team may control more than one delegate, multiple delegates can not be on the same VPS.
-
I also massively oppose requiring delegates to provide their real life identities.[...]
Either you are trolling or you have horrible reading comprehension. Please show me where anyone proposed making this a requirement??? As mentioned in nearly every single post in this thread: we are talking about VOLUNTARY information. Your concerns about providing realworld identity are valid and as I stated previously, I SHARE THOSE CONCERNS. This is why I am not a delegate. Please stop distorting the positions of other people and spreading misinformation. People like YOU are on my radar...
All of that being said, I place a heavy emphasis on identity verification in who I vote for. Identity matters. As an example, imagine the guys who run BTC-E (anonymously) decide to shut down their site and walk away with millions of dollars in deposits. As a depositor, what recourse do you have without knowing their identity??? Now, imagine we already knew their real-world identities. How likely are they to try anything malicious? Are they more likely or less likely? Common sense.
Alright, perhaps I was incorrect in using the term 'requiring', but some comments from users here are along the lines of not voting for anyone who does not disclose their real life identities, and voting out users who don't disclose identities is excluding users who believe privacy is important.
What do you forsee malicious users being able to pull off with one delegate node? Surely this system is more secure than being able to fall victim to one delegate? If you're worried about one user having 50 different identities and 50 delegates, then don't vote in users who offer nothing back to the community.
On another note - if someone was to break the btsx system, there would be no legal consequences.. this isn't a regulated system, nor is running a delegate providing you a legally binding contract. The real life consequences you refer to sounds like promoting psychopathic vigilantism.
-
Alright, perhaps I was incorrect in using the term 'requiring', but some comments from users here are along the lines of not voting for anyone who does not disclose their real life identities, and voting out users who don't disclose identities is excluding users who believe privacy is important.
Here is what it boils down to: people can vote however they like. Some people want to vote for people whose identity they know. Some people don't care about identity. We can argue about the advantages and disadvantages of each, but for you (and others) to come here and start bullying people because they have different voting preferences than you is wrong. Who are you to tell me that I cannot vote out delegates whose identity I don't know and trust??? That is the entire point of DPOS - you vote how you want and I vote how I want, each according to his values and criteria. I don't care if you disagree with me but when you start acting machismo (like the dude who had to let us know that he carries a gun lol) and threatening other people because of their voluntary voting preferences you are just making yourself look stupid.
What do you forsee malicious users being able to pull off with one delegate node? Surely this system is more secure than being able to fall victim to one delegate? If you're worried about one user having 50 different identities and 50 delegates, then don't vote in users who offer nothing back to the community.
I described one such attack above. And FYI there is really no way to know for sure the number of delegates that a particular user is running.
On another note - if someone was to break the btsx system, there would be no legal consequences.. this isn't a regulated system, nor is running a delegate providing you a legally binding contract. The real life consequences you refer to sounds like promoting psychopathic vigilantism.
Wrong again. Cryptocurrencies are treated as a commodity asset (ie, property) in most legal jurisdictions, and as a currency in others. Stealing property/money is illegal in most places and can land you in jail. Apparently punishing people for theft is "psychopathic vigilantism." I don't even... how could.... sometimes I don't even know why I try...
-
Exposing your realword identity is the single biggest deterrent to doing anything malicious. If you support this flawed assumption that it is "impossible" to do anything malicious then I guess you can worry more about 99.9% uptime vs. 99.85% uptime. But if security is your objective then there is nothing more important than realworld identity. As a delegate, if your pseudonym or online reputation is worth less to you than the potential bounty of an attack then we have no recourse against you. If we know your real identity then you will also think about jail time or worse (a much stronger deterrent).
Edit: unnecessary quotes
You have this halfway backwards. Revealing your identity could open you up to jail time (or worse) regardless of your performance as a delegate.
For example, if it is known I am sitting on a few million in USD via BTSX, it is far far less safe for me to have my real identity known. The same thing can be said if BTSX comes under some unforseen legal attack.
The implied threats about ... jail time "or worse"... are borderline silly and about as flawed as anything in this thread.
-
Alright, perhaps I was incorrect in using the term 'requiring', but some comments from users here are along the lines of not voting for anyone who does not disclose their real life identities, and voting out users who don't disclose identities is excluding users who believe privacy is important.
Here is what it boils down to: people can vote however they like. Some people want to vote for people whose identity they know. Some people don't care about identity. We can argue about the advantages and disadvantages of each, but for you (and others) to come here and start bullying people because they have different voting preferences than you is wrong. Who are you to tell me that I cannot vote out delegates whose identity I don't know and trust??? That is the entire point of DPOS - you vote how you want and I vote how I want, each according to his values and criteria. I don't care if you disagree with me but when you start acting machismo (like the dude who had to let us know that he carries a gun lol) and threatening other people because of their voluntary voting preferences you are just making yourself look stupid.
What do you forsee malicious users being able to pull off with one delegate node? Surely this system is more secure than being able to fall victim to one delegate? If you're worried about one user having 50 different identities and 50 delegates, then don't vote in users who offer nothing back to the community.
I described one such attack above. And FYI there is really no way to know for sure the number of delegates that a particular user is running.
On another note - if someone was to break the btsx system, there would be no legal consequences.. this isn't a regulated system, nor is running a delegate providing you a legally binding contract. The real life consequences you refer to sounds like promoting psychopathic vigilantism.
Wrong again. Cryptocurrencies are treated as a commodity asset (ie, property) in most legal jurisdictions, and as a currency in others. Stealing property/money is illegal in most places and can land you in jail. Apparently punishing people for theft is "psychopathic vigilantism." I don't even... how could.... sometimes I don't even know why I try...
At no point did I bully or threaten you.
Yeah, stealing property/money from a person is illegal, but no delegate can possibly steal from you - it's just not possible. The only thing they could do is break btsx, but even then if you just vote in users who offer something to the community and have something to lose (their reputation) then it won't happen.
-
You have this halfway backwards. Revealing your identity could open you up to jail time (or worse) regardless of your performance as a delegate.
For example, if it is known I am sitting on a few million in USD via BTSX, it is far far less safe for me to have my real identity known. The same thing can be said if BTSX comes under some unforseen legal attack.
You understand that these two are not mutually exclusive, right? I already stated that this is a risk for delegates. The difference is that this is a personal risk, not a systemic one (if a delegate is forced by government to shut down they are simply voted out). On the other hand, if an anonymous delegate or group of delegates colluded to harm Bitshares the risk is systemic. I maintain that there would be no recourse against them.
The implied threats about ... jail time "or worse"... are borderline silly and about as flawed as anything in this thread.
So let me get this straight - if you put someone in a position of trust you think it is "silly" to want to know who they are??? And if they steal something from you, pursuing legal action against them is "silly" too? The "or worse" part was meant to convey they fact that there are bad actors out there who will use non-legal means to get their money back. See the situation with Mark K for example. Not condoning that, but it is a factual statement and a valid deterrent for would-be scammers.
-
So let me get this straight - if you put someone in a position of trust you think it is "silly" to want to know who they are??? And if they steal something from you, pursuing legal action against them is "silly" too? The "or worse" part was meant to convey they fact that there are bad actors out there who will use non-legal means to get their money back. See the situation with Mark K for example. Not condoning that, but it is a factual statement and a valid deterrent for would-be scammers.
Except a malicious delegate can't steal from you. Perhaps a double spend attack could occur, but anyone doing so would be promptly removed from the list of delegates.
-
The implied threats about ... jail time "or worse"... are borderline silly and about as flawed as anything in this thread.
So let me get this straight - if you put someone in a position of trust you think it is "silly" to want to know who they are??? And if they steal something from you, pursuing legal action against them is "silly" too? The "or worse" part was meant to convey they fact that there are bad actors out there who will use non-legal means to get their money back. See the situation with Mark K for example. Not condoning that, but it is a factual statement and a valid deterrent for would-be scammers.
I think I was a bit clearer, but my point is that claiming people are going to be beaten up/house burned/dog shot/what have you is silly. That may happen, but by and large these types of threats are laughable. Yes, it is a factual statement. It is also a factual statement that if you were to open your front door right now, you might be mauled by a lion. Is that a deterrent to keep you from opening your front door ?
I've heard/known so many stories of people being scammed and owing 6 figures USD etc. Never heard a story of anything ever happening to them. The basic misconception is that you're dealing with nerd's money, not mobster's money.
When delegates start being paid a lot more, then perhaps I can understand being so demanding of them.
Nice attempt of just making up random nonsense about what I meant. Just like your childish sarcasm the other time I responded to you. I should have learned my lesson the first time. My apologies.
And if you haven't figured out, yes, I think any theft should be pursued within whatever abilities. That doesn't mean I think it can or would happen even if the person's id is known.
This is why I decided against running a delegate, too much of a headache having to deal with random people on the internet amongst other things when considering what is gained.
Edit - One last thing. I fully support this thread and the general direction. I like the idea of criteria. I've been trying to push for a centralized area where we have information on every delegate who is serious.
I'd like to see something like forum post age. Like coin age used in POS. How many days have passed since each post. There are lots of metrics like this that could be used. The thing I disagree about is pushing for everyone to give out their full identification. I think overall that is a negative thing and hurts the decentralized aspect of it. Even if I gave you my ID, figured out a way to rob the blockchain, do you think I'd ever be prosecuted? Probably not. If I was smart enough to figure out an exploit, I am smart enough to hide it or play dumb.
-
I've been researching btsx, and it would appear it's possible for a delegate to raise fees (maybe). Would people be massively opposed to a delegate doing so, but only if they were a charity?
-
I've been researching btsx, and it would appear it's possible for a delegate to raise fees (maybe). Would people be massively opposed to a delegate doing so, but only if they were a charity?
All fees are pooled. So the higher fee charged would only benefit the charity node if people were willing to pay it.
-
I've been researching btsx, and it would appear it's possible for a delegate to raise fees (maybe). Would people be massively opposed to a delegate doing so, but only if they were a charity?
All fees are pooled. So the higher fee charged would only benefit the charity node if people were willing to pay it.
this will probably someday become an issue for the (100%-payrate)
-
I think I was a bit clearer, but my point is that claiming people are going to be beaten up/house burned/dog shot/what have you is silly. That may happen, but by and large these types of threats are laughable. Yes, it is a factual statement. It is also a factual statement that if you were to open your front door right now, you might be mauled by a lion. Is that a deterrent to keep you from opening your front door ?
Let's think about this for a second. You steal a large sum of money from a large number of people (let's say 10,000 shareholders of BTSX) AND your identity is publicly known. You're telling me that the probability of somebody coming after you (legally or otherwise) is the same as "opening your front door and being mauled by a lion." Let me tell you something about this hypothetical scenario, Internet friend. It has already happened with multiple people. Why do you think the Roger Ver hacker returned access upon threat of being doxed??? According to you it was because "it doesn't matter if people know your identity" since this is just "nerd money" anyway, amirite??? Also there would be nothing anyone could do to him anyway!
To summarize your points:
* Delegates cannot steal money, they can only break BTSX (I disagree, but both are bad so who cares)
* If a delegate tried to break BTSX, knowing their identity is of no use
Do you ever just sit down and read what you've written before you post, or do you just puke it out, hope it makes sense, and then argue incessantly?
The thing I disagree about is pushing for everyone to give out their full identification. I think overall that is a negative thing and hurts the decentralized aspect of it. Even if I gave you my ID, figured out a way to rob the blockchain, do you think I'd ever be prosecuted? Probably not. If I was smart enough to figure out an exploit, I am smart enough to hide it or play dumb.
This bullshit here is why I continue to respond to your nonsense arguments. Nobody here is "pushing" anyone else to give out their "full identification." Show me one post that I or anyone else made "pushing" another user to give out their full ID. VOLUNTARY. Do you understand the meaning of voluntary???
-
I think I was a bit clearer, but my point is that claiming people are going to be beaten up/house burned/dog shot/what have you is silly. That may happen, but by and large these types of threats are laughable. Yes, it is a factual statement. It is also a factual statement that if you were to open your front door right now, you might be mauled by a lion. Is that a deterrent to keep you from opening your front door ?
Let's think about this for a second. You steal a large sum of money from a large number of people (let's say 10,000 shareholders of BTSX) AND your identity is publicly known. You're telling me that the probability of somebody coming after you (legally or otherwise) is the same as "opening your front door and being mauled by a lion." Let me tell you something about this hypothetical scenario, Internet friend. It has already happened with multiple people. Why do you think the Roger Ver hacker returned access upon threat of being doxed??? According to you it was because "it doesn't matter if people know your identity" since this is just "nerd money" anyway, amirite??? Also there would be nothing anyone could do to him anyway!
To summarize your points:
* Delegates cannot steal money, they can only break BTSX (I disagree, but both are bad so who cares)
* If a delegate tried to break BTSX, knowing their identity is of no use
Do you ever just sit down and read what you've written before you post, or do you just puke it out, hope it makes sense, and then argue incessantly?
The thing I disagree about is pushing for everyone to give out their full identification. I think overall that is a negative thing and hurts the decentralized aspect of it. Even if I gave you my ID, figured out a way to rob the blockchain, do you think I'd ever be prosecuted? Probably not. If I was smart enough to figure out an exploit, I am smart enough to hide it or play dumb.
This bullshit here is why I continue to respond to your nonsense arguments. Nobody here is "pushing" anyone else to give out their "full identification." Show me one post that I or anyone else made "pushing" another user to give out their full ID. VOLUNTARY. Do you understand the meaning of voluntary???
You can come up with a dozen things where hackers were pursued. Those examples are not that valid because it is always a blatantly criminal act. If you were to do something evil as a delegate, you would have a pool of plausible deniability as it is an "inside job". I'm sure you can come up with examples all day, and i can come up with far more examples where something hinky happened and nothing occurred except a theft.
And LOL at you not pushing for delegates to give out their ID. Of COURSE it is voluntary. You are not the President.
I really don't know what your obsession with knowing everyone'd id. You did this with testz in another thread and I don't remember anything else from you outside of that. Carry on with your note taking and good day.
-
I really don't know what your obsession with knowing everyone'd id. You did this with testz in another thread and I don't remember anything else from you outside of that. Carry on with your note taking and good day.
Again, I have to respond since you are spreading lies about me. For the record, Dan said that "testz is in charge of Bitshares PTS" and I assumed that testz was like DACSUnlimited - a corporate entity of some kind. So I simply asked him, "who is testz?" not knowing that testz was simply a user on this forum. Somehow you equate this with trying to dox somebody. I'm sure you wont reply with any evidence to support your accusation. Everyone can see through your shit at this point.
Edit: Not to mention how creepy it is to see you researching my comment history. I'm sure you appreciate the irony in that...
-
I really don't know what your obsession with knowing everyone'd id. You did this with testz in another thread and I don't remember anything else from you outside of that. Carry on with your note taking and good day.
Again, I have to respond since you are spreading lies about me. For the record, Dan said that "testz is in charge of Bitshares PTS" and I assumed that testz was like DACSUnlimited - a corporate entity of some kind. So I simply asked him, "who is testz?" not knowing that testz was simply a user on this forum. Somehow you equate this with trying to dox somebody. I'm sure you wont reply with any evidence to support your accusation. Everyone can see through your shit at this point.
Edit: Not to mention how creepy it is to see you researching my comment history. I'm sure you appreciate the irony in that...
"Researched" ???? And you say *I* am making up lies? I'm telling you what I remember of you as a user and your posts.
First you say "I am sure you won't show any evidence". Then you imply that I've already looked and it is "creepy" that I did so. These 2 statements don't even make sense when taken together.
Do you want me to go find the quote? Or have I already looked and it is "creepy" ?
And you're the one that is always over the top belligerent telling me all the stuff about incessantly arguing and puking up posts that make no sense, blah, blah, blah. You can't even maintain a consistent thought in your own posts outside being obnoxious 100% of the time when someone doesn't agree with you.
-
Well since I was accused of something I hadn't done, I went ahead and spent a minute doing it. I found the exact quote I was referring to.
What is "testz" (an organization?), who are the members of testz, how do we contact those people, and where can we get additional information on the organization and people?
"Where can I get additional information on the organization AND PEOPLE" rofl. Ok. Yea, I'm just making stuff up. Yea you got me again. And eveeeerrryone can see through it!
-
Well since I was accused of something I hadn't done, I went ahead and spent a minute doing it. I found the exact quote I was referring to.
What is "testz" (an organization?), who are the members of testz, how do we contact those people, and where can we get additional information on the organization and people?
"Where can I get additional information on the organization AND PEOPLE" rofl. Ok. Yea, I'm just making stuff up. Yea you got me again. And eveeeerrryone can see through it!
I was trying to put together an upgrade proposal to move Bitshares PTS to a DPOS blockchain. Dan said he wasn't responsible and that testz was in charge. I thought testz was an organization, not a forum user. I needed a person to contact, not their realworld ID, just contact information. It's like if I told you to "contact Bitshares", what would you do? I'm sure you would ask "who are the people in charge of Bitshares?" So I'll let you explain how this is an inappropriate request since you brought it up. But you wont, since it isn't.
You made the accusation, looked through my post history, and took my words out of context to prove that I am somehow prying for personal information. Juvenile.
-
Well since I was accused of something I hadn't done, I went ahead and spent a minute doing it. I found the exact quote I was referring to.
What is "testz" (an organization?), who are the members of testz, how do we contact those people, and where can we get additional information on the organization and people?
"Where can I get additional information on the organization AND PEOPLE" rofl. Ok. Yea, I'm just making stuff up. Yea you got me again. And eveeeerrryone can see through it!
I was trying to put together an upgrade proposal to move Bitshares PTS to a DPOS blockchain. Dan said he wasn't responsible and that testz was in charge. I thought testz was an organization, not a forum user. I needed a person to contact, not their realworld ID, just contact information. It's like if I told you to "contact Bitshares", what would you do? I'm sure you would ask "who are the people in charge of Bitshares?" So I'll let you explain how this is an inappropriate request since you brought it up. But you wont, since it isn't.
You made the accusation, looked through my post history, and took my words out of context to prove that I am somehow prying for personal information. Juvenile.
I am juvenile because I did what you asked ? Really ? I know *why* you did it, but you denied that you did it. Do you not remember posting the below quote ?
So I simply asked him, "who is testz?" not knowing that testz was simply a user on this forum. Somehow you equate this with trying to dox somebody. I'm sure you wont reply with any evidence to support your accusation. Everyone can see through your shit at this point.
Anyway, I have far too much respect for this forum to continue on with you over this. You will just incessantly argue and backpeddle over your own actions. You said that you just asked who testz is and I demonstrated that your request was quite a bit more specific than your version of what you asked.
Most people who want information ask for the organization and then go look for the info themselves. You on the other hand wanted someone to tell you the organization and everyone involved. Whatever. Good day.
-
Some criteria I use for selecting delegates (in order of importance):
1) Has the delegate revealed their realworld identity?
Exposing your identity is the single biggest deterrent to doing anything malicious.
2) What is their history/reputation in the community and forums?
Important, ideally in conjunction with #1.
3) Are they technically competent?
The client is not yet resilient enough to be managed by non-technical delegates. Delegates should be scripting their price feed updates and missed block notification, and should be able to react swiftly to attacks on the network.
4) Are they running more than 1 delegate?
I refuse to vote more than 1 delegate per person. Furthermore, if a person has more than a couple of delegates in the top 101 I will do my best to vote them ALL out. It is harmful and should be discouraged.
5) What is their payrate and usage of funds?
Obvious, but not terribly important.
Based on these criteria I think the quality of delegates needs to improve.
I'm from delegate team of coin(delegate ID: bts.coin/e.coin/bimin.coin) in China, and here is why I think you can trust and vote for us.
Our members:
Two members for sever maintenance and technical support, shift for 24 hours, day and night:
ID: gyhy, in China. Crypto currency and Bitshares fan. Participate in the development of discuss Bitshares test work. Lives in Beijing. 10 year’s experience in Java, Linux development. Good at network layer, distributed systems, performance optimization and parallel computing. Be familiar with all kinds of open source system.
ID: sfinder, in Canada. Senior programmer, engaged in medical information system integration in USA and Canada. Early PTS miners, initiative the "Microsoft cloud server mining technology". Toronto Chinese students' Extracurricular projects voluntary counselor. Currently guiding students to set up the Bitshares interest group and delegates.
You know technicist, only thing can prove their ability is how our delegates running. You can check it here: http://www.bitsharesblocks.com/delegates
Two members for promotion and messages.
ID: game. Founder of the Binmin China (www.bimin.cn), known as nangongyuan in China, gives long-term research and promotion of crypto currency.
ID: metalallen. One of 2 famous translators(for bitshares) in China, and the other one is Michellecat. Bitshares & DACs researcher, interpreter and writer. Here is his special column in Chinese: http://www.bts.hk/author/metalallen
One to speak, and that's me.
ID: callmeluc. Responsible for community and blog promotion. You can find me here: http://weibo.com/1829352501/profile?topnav=1&wvr=5&user=1
Our answer to your questions:
1) Has the delegate revealed their realworld identity?
Yes, almost every BTSer in China know us. But few foreigner know us because we most communicate and promote with qq and weibo.com.
2) What is their history/reputation in the community and forums?
The same as question 1. Our good reputation is only known by Chinese BTSer. And you can check it from these websites I mentioned in the member instruction.
3) Are they technically competent?
Yes. Long-term stability is the primary task, and that's why we got 2 members for sever maintenance. Lucky we have them and they did a great job.
Our server:
2Cores CPU + 4GB RAM + 60GB SSD + anti-DDoS + guaranteed 500Mbps bandwidth.
4) Are they running more than 1 delegate?
Our 5-person team, have 3 delegates(bts.coin, e.coin and bimin.coin), which I consider the best organizational structure for long-term running. We got 3 different wallets, 3 different servers and 3 different nodes for security requirement.
I think we're Qualified. If you don't think the same, please let me know.
5) What is their payrate and usage of funds?
Destroy 10% of fees.
Giving back 40% to the community for the construction and promotion of BTS/DACs. Check it here: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=6963.0
And 50% for the server and operation cost.
We think delegate running should be professional and industrialized in future, instead of one-person-deal with sparetime. That's the reason for trusting this team.
If you need more information, let me know.
Thanks~