I am curious.
I have a question... a bit wordy but hopefully a bit clear too..
Why do you think a talented person would give their time to prove themselves so that they are confident in the gamble of 2 weeks wages where they have to work free for 2 weeks to break even?
Is that making good use of inflation ... ?
⇈ This
All these outsourcing to Bitsuperlabs reeks of Bitcoin mining centralisation. Block producing should be made easy and encouraged to be as spread out as possible. The one person one delegate rule should also be implemented, even if it may not be enforceable.
Currently, lets say I come with some plan which would boost Bitshares popularity. I need some money to implement it, and I also need to get paid. So what do I do?
1. Start learning how to produce blocks reliably, or go hunting for a producer. If I care for the network I will avois stuff like Bitsuperlab and will have to spend time and effort looking for an individual.
2. I put forward my proposal.
3. I try raising money to register the delegate.
4. After elected I do my job as well as monitor my producer. If I do my task well but the producer doesn't then I get fired.
⇈ and this
I also can't help but feel that we are tending towards unnecessary centralization as I posted in my wall of text earlier in this thread. My gut tells me that early adopters and potential developers, unfamiliar with BitShares but familair with Bitcoin, will want to see a system that is easier to explain, simpler and more transparent for the basic function of securing blocks. Not a system that will become entangled in politics, community, renumeration concerns and the opinions of the most vocal. Why should block signing have anything to do with who you can convince to support you in your idea for value creation? I mean look at how this has already become a somewhat divisive topic even between those who get Bitshares.
I fear that your average potential blockchain developer or wanabee DAC employee will just understand Ethereum's math based approach, perhaps they'll even be more attracted to it on first blush. I suspect that most won't really be aware of or get the POWaste argument yet and think that there's nothing wrong with POW. We might lose them due to the complexity of how we are proposing BitShares blocks gets signed.
I know I suggested some form of nested transparency earlier on in this thread for employees/workers withing the 101 delegates/teams if we follow the proposed route, but the more I think about the more I think the two things should be separate.
Perhaps I'm just not seeing the big picture, but nobody has effectively explained to me why we need to create this chimera of two entirely separate functions within one delegate entity. Read my earlier post in this thread to perhaps unpick why I'm yet to 'see the light' on this. I want to be a convert, but I'm just not seeing it yet. I'm suspecting some will answer - well this is how you implement a system for free market value creation on the blockchain. Market forces and all that. If that's the answer then I still don't get why the two things can't be separate?
I have no idea of the practicalities of how a separation of delegates would be implemented. Can we not just define two different types of paid delegates? Block Signing Delegates (101) and Value Producing Delegates (Unlimited). Simples
![Hi, apparently this text is editable. :)](http://bitsharestalk.org/Smileys/aaron/smiley.gif)