0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: maqifrnswa on November 12, 2014, 02:01:50 pmI am still worried about voter apathy a bit. It could make getting good delegate teams in, and bad ones out, difficult. Corporations handle this by making the default vote, "vote with the board of directors." Otherwise it may be difficult to execute buybacks/mergers/acquisitions if a vocal minority can dominate the cast ballots.I have long said that if you are willing to download a wallet from someone then you trust them with your money. To that end wallet developers should select a default delegate slate to follow. This has the effect of "centralizing" effective control over delegate selection to the dev team unless users opt to vote on their own. So the dev team can be fired, but only by intentional mutiny.
I am still worried about voter apathy a bit. It could make getting good delegate teams in, and bad ones out, difficult. Corporations handle this by making the default vote, "vote with the board of directors." Otherwise it may be difficult to execute buybacks/mergers/acquisitions if a vocal minority can dominate the cast ballots.
The term delegate is already bound to refer to the consensus model because we are trying to sell DPOS vs POW. This means "value-producing delegates" should be called" workers" with "proposals", as has been discussed at length. I think it will happen eventually.
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 ... ?
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.
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 ... ?
Quote from: gamey on November 12, 2014, 09:57:45 amWhat we need is a script that will burn fees daily that we can verify.I feel like I asked this question before but... can we verify burned funds yet ?This still has problems, the main one being there are not enough people willing to watch everyone.. but the verifiable burning ability needs to be in place first.This way I could #1 create a delegate at 100%. #2 when elected I just burn all funds or maybe 99%. Whatever. #3 When we know what has most value, I can stop burning and provide accountability towards that goal (instead of accountability of burning).1,2,3.... what am I missing. Too many control freaks though. Too many managers with expectations too high.Bad idea? Good idea?To be honest if one hasn't prove himself yet, I won't vote on him..
What we need is a script that will burn fees daily that we can verify.I feel like I asked this question before but... can we verify burned funds yet ?This still has problems, the main one being there are not enough people willing to watch everyone.. but the verifiable burning ability needs to be in place first.This way I could #1 create a delegate at 100%. #2 when elected I just burn all funds or maybe 99%. Whatever. #3 When we know what has most value, I can stop burning and provide accountability towards that goal (instead of accountability of burning).1,2,3.... what am I missing. Too many control freaks though. Too many managers with expectations too high.Bad idea? Good idea?
Quote from: gamey on November 12, 2014, 09:57:45 amWhat we need is a script that will burn fees daily that we can verify.I feel like I asked this question before but... can we verify burned funds yet ?This still has problems, the main one being there are not enough people willing to watch everyone.. but the verifiable burning ability needs to be in place first.This way I could #1 create a delegate at 100%. #2 when elected I just burn all funds or maybe 99%. Whatever. #3 When we know what has most value, I can stop burning and provide accountability towards that goal (instead of accountability of burning).1,2,3.... what am I missing. Too many control freaks though. Too many managers with expectations too high.Bad idea? Good idea?Burn operations are visible as such on the blockchain, and there's a message field that's publicly visible unlike the memo messages, so they're definitely verifiable.An example: http://bitsharesblocks.com/blocks/block?id=555294
Quote from: xeroc on November 12, 2014, 08:48:29 amQuote from: ripplexiaoshan on November 12, 2014, 07:07:31 amEmployee or big contributors really don't need to maintain the delegate themselves, because bitsuperlab provides such hosting service.Besides, I support the opinion that we should set a variable payrate/block reward for delegate, according to the market cap.but we need to ensure that we have > 30 (prefereably alot more) businesses running the delegates as a service.else this will lead back to centralization ..I agree with you that we need to consider decentralization.. However maintaining a delegate is not too hard from a technical point of view. Bitsuperlab can provide such service, others could also provide likely service. Just an example.
Quote from: ripplexiaoshan on November 12, 2014, 07:07:31 amEmployee or big contributors really don't need to maintain the delegate themselves, because bitsuperlab provides such hosting service.Besides, I support the opinion that we should set a variable payrate/block reward for delegate, according to the market cap.but we need to ensure that we have > 30 (prefereably alot more) businesses running the delegates as a service.else this will lead back to centralization ..
Employee or big contributors really don't need to maintain the delegate themselves, because bitsuperlab provides such hosting service.Besides, I support the opinion that we should set a variable payrate/block reward for delegate, according to the market cap.
By the way I think the voter-delegate-contributor model make the system too complex, and maybe financial inefficient. How can we measure the amount of contribution of a delegate, or say why he deserve the payrate? When the marketcap changes, does all the delegates still deserve their payrate?
Quote from: bytemaster on November 11, 2014, 09:56:38 pmMy preferred solution for delegates:1) They are trusted and able to maintain the network2) They publish a budget on who they plan to fund and generally don't do work themselves.3) They coordinate with other delegates.If the role of delegates is to manage up to 1% of the spendable budget then we can hire many delegates. Lets keep it really simple, if you don't know how to run a node ask for funding from a delegate that does run a node. If the delegate thinks it is worth while and won't cause him to lose his spot then he can support you.Thus at the end of the day you only have to trust that a delegate can make wise evaluations about the performance of the real workers while maintaining a node.I agree with this. though...I think this begs for variable pay rates or perhaps multi-sig delegate pay over 3%? Or do you see delegates just haveing multiple sub accounts. 100%/80%/50%/25%/3% ... or just a 100% and a 3% and a promise to burn. Or just a 100% and a promise to burn.What i fear is a delegate gets 100% pay for some project. Its completed, but the pay remains. Rather than lose his spot, the delegate feverishly searches for somewhere else to spend the cash. Fills up his project board with candidates etc. (Its surely easier to keep 100% pay once you've got it, and usually leads to waste/inefficiencies) Or do you campaign again to have your 3% delegate re-elected. ... or promise to burn the 97%(multisig could force burn)voter apathy should default to base 3% pay, not full 100% pay based on prior projects.
My preferred solution for delegates:1) They are trusted and able to maintain the network2) They publish a budget on who they plan to fund and generally don't do work themselves.3) They coordinate with other delegates.If the role of delegates is to manage up to 1% of the spendable budget then we can hire many delegates. Lets keep it really simple, if you don't know how to run a node ask for funding from a delegate that does run a node. If the delegate thinks it is worth while and won't cause him to lose his spot then he can support you.Thus at the end of the day you only have to trust that a delegate can make wise evaluations about the performance of the real workers while maintaining a node.
Quote from: gamey on November 12, 2014, 08:04:29 amI ranted or "went off half-cocked" the other day. This was in opposition to the delegate fee being the same as 2 weeks average income. My thought at the time was that if you had 100% payrate on, then you had to pay the average for 2 weeks 100%. Is this true or is the fee the same regardless of your payrate? Before I rant again, I would like to see this clarified.I think it is just as you said. I think this is a waste. I believe the funds vested by the delegate initial registration should be stored instead of burned and these funds should be used to reward delegates.
I ranted or "went off half-cocked" the other day. This was in opposition to the delegate fee being the same as 2 weeks average income. My thought at the time was that if you had 100% payrate on, then you had to pay the average for 2 weeks 100%. Is this true or is the fee the same regardless of your payrate? Before I rant again, I would like to see this clarified.
Quote from: ripplexiaoshan on November 12, 2014, 07:07:31 amEmployee or big contributors really don't need to maintain the delegate themselves, because bitsuperlab provides such hosting service.Besides, I support the opinion that we should set a variable payrate/block reward for delegate, according to the market cap.
What is the argument against separation of delegates and employees?BM mentioned once about some scaling issues, never heard anything more concrete. I feel keeping the roles separate is better for the long run.
I too have some concerns about block signing delegates and employees being one and the same thing. Perhaps I need to take more time to understand the proposal.But as it stands it seems that we are proposing to have only 101 employees or employee representatives and this seems arbitrary and limiting. I get that it is probably a high enough number if we're just talking about block signing delegates securing the network. But for employees?If BitShares hits the market cap of Bitcoin what would be the maximum that each delegate could earn? My guess based on the $2,500 month that is being bandied about on the current BitShares valuation is that we'd be looking at something like $325,000 per month. Can anyone confirm?Presumably when we get to this stage there's going to need to be more than one person working for each delegate/employee position otherwise things will starts to look very top heavy in terms of who is being recompensed for work. What does that look like? Can we move towards something that will allow for transparency and is built in to the codebase? Don't we think this is important? Perhaps not - perhaps it's fine that we just have 101 delegates who effectively become 'Directors/Managers' of various employee divisions within the BitShares ecosystem. We then just trust them with our votes to employ the right people. But this just doesn't seem granular enough to me and means that the codebase will unnecessarily require the promotion of teams/fiefdoms for every bit of work that is done to build BitShares up going forwar. It means there's no room for the little guy to work alone and be paid directly by the network. Why don't we just separate out employees and allow for more granularity? Otherwise people not inside the 101 delegate positions who do not want to join an existing team may have to rely on handouts or bounties. Sounds like a precarious position to put yourself in even if you're a dyed in the wool supporter and want to grow the ecosystem. Rockstar employees/leaders such as BM will of course end up leading teams that consist of more than one person, but for others is the requirement strictly necessary?If we're going to stick with the creation of this chimera of the two things then the only way I can see it working is to have some form of transparent nesting. So I can join one of the 101 'Teams', but everyone can see what what slice of the teams budget I am being allocated for my role within that team. There is some merit in this in that it provides an incentive for smaller guys to get on board with a 'Team' in order to be under the protective wing of one of the 101 trusted delegates/team managers.It does make me ponder whether this all relies too much on individuals. When whole networks of people come to rely on their income from the 101 delegate positions and the figure-heads who represent those 101 positions can we be sure that everyone will be voting or campaigning for the good of the network or is it more likely to act through self interest. If the two were separate I'd have no problem with them acting in their own self interest, but when it starts to interfere with block signing then it becomes a different matter. Perhaps I'm wrong and that the self interest part is a recognized necessity and this is why the current proposal is what is being suggested.Am I missing something obvious here? Please feel free to explain if I've missed something fundamental.
This is where the expertise of BM, toast, Nathan, Vikram, etc. come in. They know very well what is costly and what isn't from a blockchain perspective.
Quote from: puppies on November 12, 2014, 03:54:21 amQuote from: Riverhead on November 12, 2014, 03:49:56 amQuote from: puppies on November 12, 2014, 03:46:05 amI am a fan of variable pay rates. I propose that raising of your pay rate requires a fee equal to the increased pay for an entire month. And that it causes all votes for you to decay after three weeks time if not rebroadcast. I like that idea but I think it'd be pretty expensive once transaction counts per block start to rise.I'm not sure what you mean? My understanding of the new pay structure is that all fees are burned and delegate pay at a certain pay rate is pre determined as measured in bts. What am I missing.Think of it like a turn based strategy game and each block is when the game changes state. The more rules that are baked into the system the more computations each transaction requires. There is a window to release a block before it will be rejected by the network. With 10 second blocks that window is fairly small. So as the number and complexity of rules increase the hardware required to produce a timely block increases.
Quote from: Riverhead on November 12, 2014, 03:49:56 amQuote from: puppies on November 12, 2014, 03:46:05 amI am a fan of variable pay rates. I propose that raising of your pay rate requires a fee equal to the increased pay for an entire month. And that it causes all votes for you to decay after three weeks time if not rebroadcast. I like that idea but I think it'd be pretty expensive once transaction counts per block start to rise.I'm not sure what you mean? My understanding of the new pay structure is that all fees are burned and delegate pay at a certain pay rate is pre determined as measured in bts. What am I missing.
Quote from: puppies on November 12, 2014, 03:46:05 amI am a fan of variable pay rates. I propose that raising of your pay rate requires a fee equal to the increased pay for an entire month. And that it causes all votes for you to decay after three weeks time if not rebroadcast. I like that idea but I think it'd be pretty expensive once transaction counts per block start to rise.
I am a fan of variable pay rates. I propose that raising of your pay rate requires a fee equal to the increased pay for an entire month. And that it causes all votes for you to decay after three weeks time if not rebroadcast.
Quote from: sumantso on November 12, 2014, 03:52:56 amWhat is the argument against separation of delegates and employees?BM mentioned once about some scaling issues, never heard anything more concrete. I feel keeping the roles separate is better for the long run.I like to think of it as everyone is an employee of the shareholders, especially the delegates. There's a saying in sports, "Owners don't fire players. Owners fire coaches". I feel that works well for the relationship between a delegate and the shareholders.To that end I can see the forum moving from discussing allocations, bugs, etc. to discussing projects, funding, and pay rates. It wouldn't be one delegate going it alone trying to field a team. It would be a community where someone posts up an idea and everyone posts up about the proposed budget and the delegates can voice their thoughts on their ability to pay for the project and as a community the work is given the green light once support and funding are in place.
...and wise. Those volunteers who are prudently able to save their part time pay for the first year may find they actually drew more than full-time pay when they see what its worth next year.
Quote from: maqifrnswa on November 12, 2014, 01:36:52 amDon't get me wrong, I think this is innovative - but it is also difficult to pull off since it relies on some serious organizers. Those people that are best qualified will require a lot of money in order for it to be worth their time. $2500/month won't be enough money for serious entrepreneurs to do anything yet. At this point, it's basically paying smallish projects and development. We just need equity to increase at a rate greater than is being paid out. That's the hard part, don't know if this new system will pull it off - but it is innovative.I imagine it will be mostly volunteers for the next year or so. People who are dedicated and passionate.
Don't get me wrong, I think this is innovative - but it is also difficult to pull off since it relies on some serious organizers. Those people that are best qualified will require a lot of money in order for it to be worth their time. $2500/month won't be enough money for serious entrepreneurs to do anything yet. At this point, it's basically paying smallish projects and development. We just need equity to increase at a rate greater than is being paid out. That's the hard part, don't know if this new system will pull it off - but it is innovative.
If I understand this correctly than this is a scenario you'd like to see:I run a node at 100% pay but only keep enough of it for a bit of income for myself, expenses to run the node, and the rest I pay out the people that would provide non technical work like Vato and MeTHoDx. This would save them from the chore of having to run a node and it would save me doing a crappy job at what they are good at. We'd agree on a percentage cut of the node, or as things grow a salary.There isn't any reason such a person couldn't work for multiple nodes. Or, put another way, I could coordinate with say Xeroc and GaltReport to fund MeTHoDx.
Bytemaster hijacked my thread with something important.
Quote from: bytemaster on November 11, 2014, 09:56:38 pmMy preferred solution for delegates:1) They are trusted and able to maintain the network2) They publish a budget on who they plan to fund and generally don't do work themselves.3) They coordinate with other delegates.If the role of delegates is to manage up to 1% of the spendable budget then we can hire many delegates. Lets keep it really simple, if you don't know how to run a node ask for funding from a delegate that does run a node. If the delegate thinks it is worth while and won't cause him to lose his spot then he can support you.Thus at the end of the day you only have to trust that a delegate can make wise evaluations about the performance of the real workers while maintaining a node.BM, you could probably post this to a new thread so others can find it.