0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: puppies on July 21, 2014, 08:09:41 pmI was one of the delegates that made it in (while I was sleeping) and was only able to produce 75% of my blocks. I have dug through the logs and don't see any reason for missing these blocks. Looking at the forks from my seed node shows a pretty massive latency before it received my delegates blocks 18 and 14 seconds. I'm not sure if the two nodes were connected at the time, but they usually are. So I am not sure if it was a network issue, or if my delegate just fired late.I have increased the ram on my VPS and am curious if that will improve its performance. My other thought is around geographical location as my delegate node is based on the US west coast.There are periodic network glitches that could cause your node to hang and miss a block. We are attempting to find the cause.
I was one of the delegates that made it in (while I was sleeping) and was only able to produce 75% of my blocks. I have dug through the logs and don't see any reason for missing these blocks. Looking at the forks from my seed node shows a pretty massive latency before it received my delegates blocks 18 and 14 seconds. I'm not sure if the two nodes were connected at the time, but they usually are. So I am not sure if it was a network issue, or if my delegate just fired late.I have increased the ram on my VPS and am curious if that will improve its performance. My other thought is around geographical location as my delegate node is based on the US west coast.
I have added ntp. When I blockchain_list_forks my delegate of course shows zero latency on my orphaned blocks, and shows then as being created at the correct time. Is there a bug that prevents the node from broadcasting those in a timely fashion? Would any logs help or do you already have a large enough sample size?
Not true... people are buying / selling on this chain and that is for keeps...
Quote from: xeroc on July 21, 2014, 03:31:14 pmQuote from: bytemaster on July 21, 2014, 03:18:30 pmI allowed a few more people in and unvoted some of the init delegates and the network fell to condition yellow.... with 85% participation rate. For the health of the network while it is still young having a strong core at is important. Once we get back to condition green I will remove some more init delegates. In the mean time we are working on many bug fixes. .. thats my concern too .. some delegates dont take it seriously enough Ps: thanks for voting me inAt this point in the game we should not blame delegates for missing some blocks (note even init delegates missed some). There are bugs in the network code that cause things to hang from time to time and even delegates with nodes up miss. We are working on fixing as many issues as possible.DAC Sun Limited released things earlier than I would have liked, but at least things are running and people are liquid. The cost of early release is higher reliance on the initial delegates until the system is robust enough to handle all of the edge cases.
Quote from: bytemaster on July 21, 2014, 03:18:30 pmI allowed a few more people in and unvoted some of the init delegates and the network fell to condition yellow.... with 85% participation rate. For the health of the network while it is still young having a strong core at is important. Once we get back to condition green I will remove some more init delegates. In the mean time we are working on many bug fixes. .. thats my concern too .. some delegates dont take it seriously enough Ps: thanks for voting me in
I allowed a few more people in and unvoted some of the init delegates and the network fell to condition yellow.... with 85% participation rate. For the health of the network while it is still young having a strong core at is important. Once we get back to condition green I will remove some more init delegates. In the mean time we are working on many bug fixes.
Quote from: bytemaster on July 21, 2014, 03:36:53 pm[At this point in the game we should not blame delegates for missing some blocks (note even init delegates missed some). There are bugs in the network code that cause things to hang from time to time and even delegates with nodes up miss. We are working on fixing as many issues as possible.DAC Sun Limited released things earlier than I would have liked, but at least things are running and people are liquid. The cost of early release is higher reliance on the initial delegates until the system is robust enough to handle all of the edge cases.I guess at this point since the only BTSX on the chain are imported from existing wallets a full chain reset wouldn't really cost anyone anything except time (minus fees earned).Like paying poker with real money vs fake chips I have found the real deal much more educational than the tests now that I have real skin in the game.
[At this point in the game we should not blame delegates for missing some blocks (note even init delegates missed some). There are bugs in the network code that cause things to hang from time to time and even delegates with nodes up miss. We are working on fixing as many issues as possible.DAC Sun Limited released things earlier than I would have liked, but at least things are running and people are liquid. The cost of early release is higher reliance on the initial delegates until the system is robust enough to handle all of the edge cases.
Code: [Select]>> wallet_account_transaction_history angelRECEIVED BLOCK FROM TO AMOUNT MEMO BALANCE FEE ID =============================================================================================================================================================================================2014-07-19T20:13:23 5999 founders angel 0.00000 BTSX register angel 0.00000 BTSX 0.00000 BTSX 6dae8d92014-07-19T20:13:47 0 GENESIS angel 58,783,758.26081 BTSX claim PaNGELmZgzRQCKeEKM6ifgTqNkC4ceiAWw 58,783,758.26081 BTSX 0.00000 BTSX VIRTUAL2014-07-19T20:13:47 0 GENESIS angel 6.44000 BTSX claim PkC5oBxxY6gSrBEbxkjCLFQnzzqvAKZV1V 58,783,764.70081 BTSX 0.00000 BTSX VIRTUAL2014-07-19T20:13:47 0 GENESIS angel 6.44200 BTSX claim PdHvncH2w8A2mXobJVevaQcTLD1MUvob4R 58,783,771.14281 BTSX 0.00000 BTSX VIRTUAL2014-07-19T20:13:47 0 GENESIS angel 6.44200 BTSX claim PjadfkbV2EYCCR6VxTYMfscxcdebW63QTM 58,783,777.58481 BTSX 0.00000 BTSX VIRTUAL2014-07-19T20:15:17 6009 angel angel 58,783,777.00000 BTSX vote 58,783,777.48481 BTSX 0.10000 BTSX b93b3412014-07-21T13:17:09 19946 angel angel 58,783,777.00000 BTSX vote 58,783,777.48481 BTSX 0.10000 BTSX cc9aa142014-07-21T14:16:30 20279 angel angel 58,783,777.00000 BTSX vote 58,783,777.48481 BTSX 0.10000 BTSX 1744b39
>> wallet_account_transaction_history angelRECEIVED BLOCK FROM TO AMOUNT MEMO BALANCE FEE ID =============================================================================================================================================================================================2014-07-19T20:13:23 5999 founders angel 0.00000 BTSX register angel 0.00000 BTSX 0.00000 BTSX 6dae8d92014-07-19T20:13:47 0 GENESIS angel 58,783,758.26081 BTSX claim PaNGELmZgzRQCKeEKM6ifgTqNkC4ceiAWw 58,783,758.26081 BTSX 0.00000 BTSX VIRTUAL2014-07-19T20:13:47 0 GENESIS angel 6.44000 BTSX claim PkC5oBxxY6gSrBEbxkjCLFQnzzqvAKZV1V 58,783,764.70081 BTSX 0.00000 BTSX VIRTUAL2014-07-19T20:13:47 0 GENESIS angel 6.44200 BTSX claim PdHvncH2w8A2mXobJVevaQcTLD1MUvob4R 58,783,771.14281 BTSX 0.00000 BTSX VIRTUAL2014-07-19T20:13:47 0 GENESIS angel 6.44200 BTSX claim PjadfkbV2EYCCR6VxTYMfscxcdebW63QTM 58,783,777.58481 BTSX 0.00000 BTSX VIRTUAL2014-07-19T20:15:17 6009 angel angel 58,783,777.00000 BTSX vote 58,783,777.48481 BTSX 0.10000 BTSX b93b3412014-07-21T13:17:09 19946 angel angel 58,783,777.00000 BTSX vote 58,783,777.48481 BTSX 0.10000 BTSX cc9aa142014-07-21T14:16:30 20279 angel angel 58,783,777.00000 BTSX vote 58,783,777.48481 BTSX 0.10000 BTSX 1744b39
How do you get rid of the initial delegates?If it's about voting and disapproving of them, shouldn't it be easier than it has been?We have a HUGE list of delegates trying to be the real deal, but somehow they are not able to get enough votes like myself. I believe the fact that since there are still users with multiple delegates and all the initial delegates are still actively approved, delegation and community consensus is failing. I was under the impression it would be more of a popularity contest not a deepest pockets contest. Yesterday it said the top delegate had over 4% approval. If I am interpreting this correctly, he has 80 million BTS backing him right? This roughly translates to over 1600 BTC in worth. I am going to go out on a limb and say most people own 100,000 BTS or less like myself, around 2 BTC worth. It looks like the bottom delegate has near 1% approval. So I have to find a really big fish or get 200 others like myself to vote me in to become a delegate at the bottom of the list. This is not the big problem, because who really cares if I can't become a delegate or someone like me.The real problem is that the community consensus is to get rid of the initDelegates, yet there they are. Still producing blocks. The voice isn't as loud as the pockets are deep, and this is a problem that probably can't be solved. This also can create a negative perception to the outsiders coming in. Centralization issues.As memorycoin proved, the community doesn't participate unless it will benefit the individual. While delegates can destroy fees, it is clear that the community doesn't care about that and shows me that the only voting participants are the ones who are trying to become delegates or are already a delegate.We need 2 things to happen now; initial delegates need to be voted out and any person running multiple delegates need to be voted out. This is all in the interest of decentralization. I am not saying this to get votes. I clearly don't have enough weight to become a delegate (I thought I'd be campaigning for the House, but instead it's the Senate) and will likely pull the plug when I get home from work.
You have to understand that this early in the game many people who made long-term investments see no reason to bring their stake online and thus there is a lot of idle support.It has always been the case that those with a lot of stake have a lot of influence, particularly if they are active. Give it time, this isn't permanent centralization like you see with the other systems. This network is growing more decentralized by the day.
Example I tried to send a bunch of BTSX to my delegate to vote for itself and it caused it to subtract votes from previously voted for delegates.
Quote from: bytemaster on July 21, 2014, 03:44:09 amI intend to vote for the most promising delegates other than init* tomorrow when I get a chance. We need a very diversified group of delegates and the whales want that as well. The init delegates have no incentive to harm the network and have no extra power. If you want them out then find a measly 3.9% of the shareholders to take care of it. Right now the funds received from the PTS angel address are voting for many of the initial delegates, but also some of the other delegates. I plan on using those funds to bring in more delegates tomorrow.I also don't think shareholders are aware how the voting works. To my knowledge only amounts transferred really affect votes. Can you clarify?Is there a good infographic about that? My experience showed that unless I transfer ALL my BTSX to myself - the vote count doesn't really matter.So in other words when people do wallet_approve_delegate kpd-1 they don't really cast any reasonable size vote until they TRANSFER their shares (even if to themselves)
I intend to vote for the most promising delegates other than init* tomorrow when I get a chance. We need a very diversified group of delegates and the whales want that as well. The init delegates have no incentive to harm the network and have no extra power. If you want them out then find a measly 3.9% of the shareholders to take care of it. Right now the funds received from the PTS angel address are voting for many of the initial delegates, but also some of the other delegates. I plan on using those funds to bring in more delegates tomorrow.
Quote from: bytemaster on July 21, 2014, 03:44:09 amI intend to vote for the most promising delegates other than init* tomorrow when I get a chance. We need a very diversified group of delegates and the whales want that as well. The init delegates have no incentive to harm the network and have no extra power. If you want them out then find a measly 3.9% of the shareholders to take care of it. Right now the funds received from the PTS angel address are voting for many of the initial delegates, but also some of the other delegates. I plan on using those funds to bring in more delegates tomorrow.Thanks, Dan. It's good to know.Just for the peace of investors' mind, could you keep a record of the following?every transactions that the BTSX funds from PTS angel address has madelist of voted delegatesIt's part of BitShares Trust Fund, and deserves a proper audit book like this: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AqTwk-e7yzJydFZ3bVVWT0o1OUwzXzdESHFBY0FkUWc&usp=sharing#gid=0 .
Please vote for chineseBTS X delegate ID:chineseWhy vote for "chinese"?1) I am cooperating with China Education Bookstore and will donate 20% of income to the poor students in China. Donation details will be posted for public view.2)I will destroy 20% of the fees and my pay rate is 80%. It is my way to pay dividends to all the bitshares holders. vote for "chinese" wallet_approve_delegate chinese truemy delegate's server: professional hosted 4Cores CPU + 4GB RAM + 100GB SSD + anti-DDoS + guaranteed 500Mbps bandwidth
Quote from: toast on July 21, 2014, 03:06:57 am3I the company probably did not put those votes.If by "3I" you mean one of the whale members (dan, stan, bo, greg, etc) then probably you are right.Thanks for the reply, Toast.By *3I the company* you mean the entity behind ELmZgzRQCKeEKM6ifgTqNkC4ceiAWw and those 61,000 PTS, right? If so, shouldn't those BTSX derived from ELmZgzRQCKeEKM6ifgTqNkC4ceiAWw be publicly viewable, i.e., which BTSX address did ELmZgzRQCKeEKM6ifgTqNkC4ceiAWw get imported to?
3I the company probably did not put those votes.If by "3I" you mean one of the whale members (dan, stan, bo, greg, etc) then probably you are right.
Quote from: HackFisher on July 21, 2014, 02:26:34 amQuote from: Goomboo on July 21, 2014, 02:23:19 amQuote from: HackFisher on July 21, 2014, 02:10:41 amQuote from: Riverhead on July 21, 2014, 01:51:45 amQuote from: bitcoinerS on July 21, 2014, 01:50:10 amQuote from: Riverhead on July 21, 2014, 01:43:03 amThey should go away naturally as real delegates get votes.They have way too many votes to begin with. They should be gone as soon as there are enough real delegates.True - They should have started with much lower votes. Also, there should be more than 100 delegates.They did start with very low votes, < 0.01%, but some share holders choose to approve them."some share holders"...I can hardly find any other party with 3.9% BTSX besides 3I:With the PTS AGS donation address (http://www1.agsexplorer.com/balances/PaNGELmZgzRQCKeEKM6ifgTqNkC4ceiAWw), 3I already holds 2.9% of BTSX. 3I claimed to have mined 61,000 PTS at the beginning, which can be easily converted to 1.9% of BTSX (assume that those 61,000 PTS didn't go to the AGS donation address)So, conservatively, 3I holds at least 4.8% of all BTSX in circulation. Can 3I prove that they didn't vote those init*** delegates using those 4.8% BTSX?I guess It may be due to security reasons, give time to delegates to well prepared, not just rush in without good service.I take it that you (HackFisher) has admitted that 3I is behind those 3.9% votes, but for *good* reasons.
Quote from: Goomboo on July 21, 2014, 02:23:19 amQuote from: HackFisher on July 21, 2014, 02:10:41 amQuote from: Riverhead on July 21, 2014, 01:51:45 amQuote from: bitcoinerS on July 21, 2014, 01:50:10 amQuote from: Riverhead on July 21, 2014, 01:43:03 amThey should go away naturally as real delegates get votes.They have way too many votes to begin with. They should be gone as soon as there are enough real delegates.True - They should have started with much lower votes. Also, there should be more than 100 delegates.They did start with very low votes, < 0.01%, but some share holders choose to approve them."some share holders"...I can hardly find any other party with 3.9% BTSX besides 3I:With the PTS AGS donation address (http://www1.agsexplorer.com/balances/PaNGELmZgzRQCKeEKM6ifgTqNkC4ceiAWw), 3I already holds 2.9% of BTSX. 3I claimed to have mined 61,000 PTS at the beginning, which can be easily converted to 1.9% of BTSX (assume that those 61,000 PTS didn't go to the AGS donation address)So, conservatively, 3I holds at least 4.8% of all BTSX in circulation. Can 3I prove that they didn't vote those init*** delegates using those 4.8% BTSX?I guess It may be due to security reasons, give time to delegates to well prepared, not just rush in without good service.
Quote from: HackFisher on July 21, 2014, 02:10:41 amQuote from: Riverhead on July 21, 2014, 01:51:45 amQuote from: bitcoinerS on July 21, 2014, 01:50:10 amQuote from: Riverhead on July 21, 2014, 01:43:03 amThey should go away naturally as real delegates get votes.They have way too many votes to begin with. They should be gone as soon as there are enough real delegates.True - They should have started with much lower votes. Also, there should be more than 100 delegates.They did start with very low votes, < 0.01%, but some share holders choose to approve them."some share holders"...I can hardly find any other party with 3.9% BTSX besides 3I:With the PTS AGS donation address (http://www1.agsexplorer.com/balances/PaNGELmZgzRQCKeEKM6ifgTqNkC4ceiAWw), 3I already holds 2.9% of BTSX. 3I claimed to have mined 61,000 PTS at the beginning, which can be easily converted to 1.9% of BTSX (assume that those 61,000 PTS didn't go to the AGS donation address)So, conservatively, 3I holds at least 4.8% of all BTSX in circulation. Can 3I prove that they didn't vote those init*** delegates using those 4.8% BTSX?
Quote from: Riverhead on July 21, 2014, 01:51:45 amQuote from: bitcoinerS on July 21, 2014, 01:50:10 amQuote from: Riverhead on July 21, 2014, 01:43:03 amThey should go away naturally as real delegates get votes.They have way too many votes to begin with. They should be gone as soon as there are enough real delegates.True - They should have started with much lower votes. Also, there should be more than 100 delegates.They did start with very low votes, < 0.01%, but some share holders choose to approve them.
Quote from: bitcoinerS on July 21, 2014, 01:50:10 amQuote from: Riverhead on July 21, 2014, 01:43:03 amThey should go away naturally as real delegates get votes.They have way too many votes to begin with. They should be gone as soon as there are enough real delegates.True - They should have started with much lower votes. Also, there should be more than 100 delegates.
Quote from: Riverhead on July 21, 2014, 01:43:03 amThey should go away naturally as real delegates get votes.They have way too many votes to begin with. They should be gone as soon as there are enough real delegates.
They should go away naturally as real delegates get votes.
I guess It may be due to security reasons, give time to delegates to well prepared, not just rush in without good service.
Quote from: HackFisher on July 21, 2014, 02:26:34 amI guess It may be due to security reasons, give time to delegates to well prepared, not just rush in without good service.Most delegates have already prepared during last 10 Dry runs.
"some share holders"...I can hardly find any other party with 3.9% BTSX besides 3I:
They did start with very low votes, < 0.01%, but some share holders choose to approve them.