BitShares Forum

Main => Stakeholder Proposals => Topic started by: sumantso on May 20, 2015, 09:50:28 am

Title: Review Methodx and pc delegates
Post by: sumantso on May 20, 2015, 09:50:28 am
Methodx: No longer being controlled btyMethiodx and used for different purpose that what it was voted in for. This undermines the whole voting process.

pc: Working 6.5 hours a month and collecting almost 150k Bitshares. Much better to have dilution delegates, collect the amount and hire developers later when price is good.

I suggest downvote both, if anyone cares. There seems to voter apathy here.
Title: Re: Review Methodx and pc delegates
Post by: cass on May 20, 2015, 09:56:54 am
@pc: he is a really valueable player... and joined the  dev team .. do you really think this would make sense now?
(To be correct ... for 150k then he was working 19.5 hours -- if you calculate the normal hourly rates of a dev like him ... he is still underpayed)


@methodx: AFAIK this funds are redirected to riverhead to get more liquity for the trading bots ...

So i'm disagreeing about downvote them ...

my 2 cents
Title: Re: Review Methodx and pc delegates
Post by: xeroc on May 20, 2015, 09:58:06 am
There seems to voter apathy here.
I wouldn't call this vote apathy .. I know for a fact that the funds that go to pc, and the delegates pay of method-x are used in a usefull manner. Hence, I do not vote them down. And it seems most shareholders still see more value coming in from them as being spend on them.

The fact that 150k BTS are worth just a few bucks doesn't really count .. it isn't their fault .. and in contrast to many many others on the forum, they really deserve the money IMHO
Title: Re: Review Methodx and pc delegates
Post by: xeroc on May 20, 2015, 09:58:53 am
@methodx: AFAIK this funds are redirected to riverhead to get more liquity for the trading bots ...
Maybe we could have official clarification .. because I though the funds are send to datasecuritynode to fund bitsharesmining
Title: Re: Review Methodx and pc delegates
Post by: cass on May 20, 2015, 10:00:41 am
@methodx: AFAIK this funds are redirected to riverhead to get more liquity for the trading bots ...
Maybe we could have official clarification .. because I though the funds are send to datasecuritynode to fund bitsharesmining

this would make sense …
Title: Re: Review Methodx and pc delegates
Post by: sumantso on May 20, 2015, 10:21:15 am
The fact that 150k BTS are worth just a few bucks doesn't really count .. it isn't their fault .. and in contrast to many many others on the forum, they really deserve the money IMHO

It is a few bucks now, so it is pointless paying market rates at this moment.
Title: Re: Review Methodx and pc delegates
Post by: xeroc on May 20, 2015, 10:48:39 am
It is a few bucks now, so it is pointless paying market rates at this moment.
So don't pay them at all?
I for myself can't ask any active members to be as generous as I am and not get paid at all .. That's btw .. undermining the profitability of bitshares ..
Title: Re: Review Methodx and pc delegates
Post by: pc on May 20, 2015, 11:52:13 am
pc: Working 6.5 hours a month and collecting almost 150k Bitshares. Much better to have dilution delegates, collect the amount and hire developers later when price is good.

Just yesterday I spoke with BM on skype, and I can tell you that this month I'll put more than 6.5 hours into BitShares.
Title: Re: Review Methodx and pc delegates
Post by: Xeldal on May 20, 2015, 12:09:02 pm
@methodx: AFAIK this funds are redirected to riverhead to get more liquity for the trading bots ...
Maybe we could have official clarification .. because I though the funds are send to datasecuritynode to fund bitsharesmining

last I heard:
Methodx sent remaining funds to Cass for LimeWallet, and Riverhead repurposed this delegate to fund bots.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,15131.msg195361.html#msg195361
Title: Re: Review Methodx and pc delegates
Post by: sumantso on May 20, 2015, 12:38:20 pm
It is a few bucks now, so it is pointless paying market rates at this moment.
So don't pay them at all?
I for myself can't ask any active members to be as generous as I am and not get paid at all .. That's btw .. undermining the profitability of bitshares ..

There is a full dev team. You think another 6.5 hours is essential?

pc: Working 6.5 hours a month and collecting almost 150k Bitshares. Much better to have dilution delegates, collect the amount and hire developers later when price is good.

Just yesterday I spoke with BM on skype, and I can tell you that this month I'll put more than 6.5 hours into BitShares.

I am not asking you to put more hours in than what you're getting paid for. I was wondering if it was better to come back when you can be paid for a significant number of hours.

@methodx: AFAIK this funds are redirected to riverhead to get more liquity for the trading bots ...
Maybe we could have official clarification .. because I though the funds are send to datasecuritynode to fund bitsharesmining

last I heard:
Methodx sent remaining funds to Cass for LimeWallet, and Riverhead repurposed this delegate to fund bots.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,15131.msg195361.html#msg195361

You can't simply repurpose like that. I am not against how it is currently being utilized, I am against voting it in after saying one thing and then changing it. Its dangerous.
Title: Re: Review Methodx and pc delegates
Post by: chryspano on May 20, 2015, 01:25:51 pm
Quote

There is a full dev team. You think another 6.5 hours is essential?

Maybe yes..
(http://i.imgur.com/zm6050V.jpg)

Maybe no..
(http://i.imgur.com/dwNpeKZ.jpg)

but if you ask me I would always prefer more coding, even if it was only half an hour.


Quote
You can't simply repurpose like that. I am not against how it is currently being utilized, I am against voting it in after saying one thing and then changing it. Its dangerous.
There is no way to stop this from happening by "good guys" or "bad guys"  but we can instantly vote them out if we want. Stopping a good delegate from doing this change doesn't guarantee us that the "bad guys" won't try to abuse this, voting is our weapon and we are using it.
Title: Re: Review Methodx and pc delegates
Post by: mint chocolate chip on May 20, 2015, 01:39:30 pm
I brought this up 6 weeks ago and got the Stan spin...

What I do not like so much is delegates leaving and 'handing' off their position to someone else. Do we not have a way for a 100% delegate to reduce his or her pay? If you are hired, and you decide to move on, it would be nice if you reduced your pay to 3% and continue signing blocks, inform everyone and ask to be voted out.

Another way your could choose to look at it is that, as we grow, delegates are destined to become small businesses funding perhaps several people to accomplish their tasks.  Under that model, people might come and go while the business remains in good graces.  If that is not philosophically objectionable to you, then having delegates find someone to "take over" for them on the mission they were hired to do (as a proto-business) seems like it could be perfectly natural.

Voter apathy stems from the issue that there are only a couple of voters like BM, the Chinese exchanges, and a whale or two who have the instant power to put someone in or out of the top 101, the rest of our votes are insignificant and so campaigning for or against someone has become inconsequential and in some cases unpopular.
Title: Re: Review Methodx and pc delegates
Post by: xeroc on May 20, 2015, 01:49:43 pm
In the end .. @pc also gets paid to read into existing code, familiarize himself with the architecture and maybe someday become a full-time dev ..
Title: Re: Review Methodx and pc delegates
Post by: xeroc on May 20, 2015, 01:51:04 pm
Voter apathy stems from the issue that there are only a couple of voters like BM, the Chinese exchanges, and a whale or two who have the instant power to put someone in or out of the top 101, the rest of our votes are insignificant and so campaigning for or against someone has become inconsequential and in some cases unpopular.
Just like democracy .. though, would you not go vote for your local government?

Also ... again ... BitShares is a company .. NOT a democracy ..
Title: Re: Review Methodx and pc delegates
Post by: BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode on May 20, 2015, 02:35:43 pm
@methodx: AFAIK this funds are redirected to riverhead to get more liquity for the trading bots ...
Maybe we could have official clarification .. because I though the funds are send to datasecuritynode to fund bitsharesmining

No, we are not getting funds from that delegate. The only funds powering minebitshares at present is our own 100% minebitshares-reloaded, 100% delegate.rgcrypo, and 12% from fuzzy.beyondbitcoin.

I am going to shamelessly do it again like I did in a thread that got started like this yesterday.. since people are going to be running to the vote area, it will be a good time to vote in the other delegates we need for MineBitShares. We deliver measurable results on a daily basis. If you want to put your vote where you know it is hard at work delivering new users and increasing the market cap for BitShares, then vote for these delegates:

minebts1.bunkermining-com
minebts2.bunkermining-com
minebts3.bunkermining-com
minebts4.bunkermining-com
minebts5.bunkermining-com
minebts6.bunkermining-com

You can see our proposal link here: http://vote.bunkermining.com

It would be nice if these delegates that have passed by and did something with their current positions were more vocal about it.. actually if you want that problem solved.. give a thumbs up to delegate.dposhub-org that will bring accountability and clarity to the whole delegate system.. even the new one coming! :)

Title: Re: Review Methodx and pc delegates
Post by: xeroc on May 20, 2015, 02:37:08 pm
I see .. mixed up method-x with rgcrypto .. sorry
Title: Re: Review Methodx and pc delegates
Post by: Agent86 on May 20, 2015, 04:27:13 pm
I like that PC charges what he is worth, even if it highlights our self created system problems as much as anything.  It's not his fault that the setup makes it really difficult for stakeholders to govern / hire; I would take up the complaint with Dan not PC.

Despite repeated urgings not to, Dan decided to conflate the idea of DPOS/block signers with blockchain hiring.  This made voting confusing and added an extra step for potential workers like PC.  He then unilaterally changed the consensus of the chain to dilute at a rate he randomly picked (50 BTS / block).  And also made it expensive for potential delegates to even register so people like PC have to put up significant money to even see if they get elected.

This is not PCs fault; I doubt if he would have made the same decisions.

Sorry for the tangent but it's a bit frustrating to me because I think blockchain hiring was a great idea. It was a great idea that bytemaster had nothing to do with, but somehow he managed to take this great idea and use it / implement it in such a crazy and poorly thought out way (from both a PR and technical point of view) that it made this project less valuable instead of more valuable.  I'm still left scratching my head about what blockchain hiring ever had or should have had to do with DPOS (nothing).
/rant
Title: Re: Review Methodx and pc delegates
Post by: lil_jay890 on May 20, 2015, 04:30:34 pm
I like that PC charges what he is worth, even if it highlights our self created system problems as much as anything.  It's not his fault that the setup makes it really difficult for stakeholders to govern / hire; I would take up the complaint with Dan not PC.

Despite repeated urgings not to, Dan decided to conflate the idea of DPOS/block signers with blockchain hiring.  This made voting confusing and added an extra step for potential workers like PC.  He then unilaterally changed the consensus of the chain to dilute at a rate he randomly picked (50 BTS / block).  And also made it expensive for potential delegates to even register so people like PC have to put up significant money to even see if they get elected.

This is not PCs fault; I doubt if he would have made the same decisions.

Sorry for the tangent but it's a bit frustrating to me because I think blockchain hiring was a great idea. It was a great idea that bytemaster had nothing to do with, but somehow he managed to take this great idea and use it / implement it in such a crazy and poorly thought out way (from both a PR and technical point of view) that it made this project less valuable instead of more valuable.  I'm still left scratching my head about what blockchain hiring ever had or should have had to do with DPOS (nothing).
/rant

But this will all be changing shortly
Title: Re: Review Methodx and pc delegates
Post by: carpet ride on May 20, 2015, 05:01:24 pm

I like that PC charges what he is worth, even if it highlights our self created system problems as much as anything.  It's not his fault that the setup makes it really difficult for stakeholders to govern / hire; I would take up the complaint with Dan not PC.

Despite repeated urgings not to, Dan decided to conflate the idea of DPOS/block signers with blockchain hiring.  This made voting confusing and added an extra step for potential workers like PC.  He then unilaterally changed the consensus of the chain to dilute at a rate he randomly picked (50 BTS / block).  And also made it expensive for potential delegates to even register so people like PC have to put up significant money to even see if they get elected.

This is not PCs fault; I doubt if he would have made the same decisions.

Sorry for the tangent but it's a bit frustrating to me because I think blockchain hiring was a great idea. It was a great idea that bytemaster had nothing to do with, but somehow he managed to take this great idea and use it / implement it in such a crazy and poorly thought out way (from both a PR and technical point of view) that it made this project less valuable instead of more valuable.  I'm still left scratching my head about what blockchain hiring ever had or should have had to do with DPOS (nothing).
/rant

Picking up some very weird undertones from this post just fyi...

Can you give us a status update?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Review Methodx and pc delegates
Post by: Agent86 on May 20, 2015, 06:32:04 pm

I like that PC charges what he is worth, even if it highlights our self created system problems as much as anything.  It's not his fault that the setup makes it really difficult for stakeholders to govern / hire; I would take up the complaint with Dan not PC.

Despite repeated urgings not to, Dan decided to conflate the idea of DPOS/block signers with blockchain hiring.  This made voting confusing and added an extra step for potential workers like PC.  He then unilaterally changed the consensus of the chain to dilute at a rate he randomly picked (50 BTS / block).  And also made it expensive for potential delegates to even register so people like PC have to put up significant money to even see if they get elected.

This is not PCs fault; I doubt if he would have made the same decisions.

Sorry for the tangent but it's a bit frustrating to me because I think blockchain hiring was a great idea. It was a great idea that bytemaster had nothing to do with, but somehow he managed to take this great idea and use it / implement it in such a crazy and poorly thought out way (from both a PR and technical point of view) that it made this project less valuable instead of more valuable.  I'm still left scratching my head about what blockchain hiring ever had or should have had to do with DPOS (nothing).
/rant

Picking up some very weird undertones from this post just fyi...

Can you give us a status update?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yea, I've just been frustrated by the cost of certain mistakes and feel like I have a hard time getting Dan to listen to me on various things, and a discussion with him yesterday left me annoyed.  Perhaps this isn't the right venue for it.  Some of it is just how the propensity to change things without warning has a personal impact on my efforts to try to contribute some value.  More generally, I would like to see bitshares stakeholders more empowered with things like easy to use polling; I don't think this is on the road map and I feel like this is kind of a foundational thing.  I feel like the destiny of bitshares is and should be in the hands of the stakeholders in large part by how they vote so it needs to be facilitated.  There's changes to the worker structure which should get released when all the other big changes get released but I'm not sure they go far enough.  I would like to see workers try to get 50% approval by active stake, which of course takes work, but IMO very worthwhile work. I would still like to see more effort to drive stakeholder involvement and make it easy because I think it may be necessary for things to play out well.
Title: Re: Review Methodx and pc delegates
Post by: santaclause102 on May 20, 2015, 07:02:14 pm

I like that PC charges what he is worth, even if it highlights our self created system problems as much as anything.  It's not his fault that the setup makes it really difficult for stakeholders to govern / hire; I would take up the complaint with Dan not PC.

Despite repeated urgings not to, Dan decided to conflate the idea of DPOS/block signers with blockchain hiring.  This made voting confusing and added an extra step for potential workers like PC.  He then unilaterally changed the consensus of the chain to dilute at a rate he randomly picked (50 BTS / block).  And also made it expensive for potential delegates to even register so people like PC have to put up significant money to even see if they get elected.

This is not PCs fault; I doubt if he would have made the same decisions.

Sorry for the tangent but it's a bit frustrating to me because I think blockchain hiring was a great idea. It was a great idea that bytemaster had nothing to do with, but somehow he managed to take this great idea and use it / implement it in such a crazy and poorly thought out way (from both a PR and technical point of view) that it made this project less valuable instead of more valuable.  I'm still left scratching my head about what blockchain hiring ever had or should have had to do with DPOS (nothing).
/rant

Picking up some very weird undertones from this post just fyi...

Can you give us a status update?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yea, I've just been frustrated by the cost of certain mistakes and feel like I have a hard time getting Dan to listen to me on various things, and a discussion with him yesterday left me annoyed.  Perhaps this isn't the right venue for it.  Some of it is just how the propensity to change things without warning has a personal impact on my efforts to try to contribute some value.  More generally, I would like to see bitshares stakeholders more empowered with things like easy to use polling; I don't think this is on the road map and I feel like this is kind of a foundational thing.  I feel like the destiny of bitshares is and should be in the hands of the stakeholders in large part by how they vote so it needs to be facilitated.  There's changes to the worker structure which should get released when all the other big changes get released but I'm not sure they go far enough.  I would like to see workers try to get 50% approval by active stake, which of course takes work, but IMO very worthwhile work. I would still like to see more effort to drive stakeholder involvement and make it easy because I think it may be necessary for things to play out well.
Aren't upcoming changes a good compromise between shareholder control and limited shareholder attention? I mean specifically the role of the delegates (forgot the new exact name of that function) that decide on changes to the network requiring a hard fork which are elected by shareholder.
The degree of voting participation might just have to do with how easy it is to use the software.
I have thought a bit about how voting participating can be increased but couldn't come up with something. I see that it would be a worth while goal to pursue. I guess voter apathy is the biggest weakness of DPOS. Do you have anything in mind there since you stated that more should be done here?

Out of pure curiosity: Are you located in Blacksburg and (how) are you getting paid? What's you role? I always valued you critical contributions and hope all is going well.
Title: Re: Review Methodx and pc delegates
Post by: Riverhead on May 20, 2015, 08:00:04 pm
You can't simply repurpose like that. I am not against how it is currently being utilized, I am against voting it in after saying one thing and then changing it. Its dangerous.

I have always run the marketing.methodx delegate. So the hand off wasn't so much a transfer as doing something with the funds that were spooling up after MethodX parted ways with the crypto space. The internal market was, and still is, in bad need of liquidity. I had the bots already written (80% written by toast and adapted by me) for other purposes but have been reworking them to better support volume: Peg over Profit if you will.

As Xeldal pointed out this wasn't done in some sneaky way. I made a public post for all to see. I have made no effort to hide what the funds are being used for. Not agreeing with what I'm doing is perfectly fine and people can vote accordingly. It would be foolish of any delegate to think everyone is going to agree with them all the time; especially with a system like Bitshares where most of the people left are heavily invested emotionally.

The delegate is currently in 7th place. Even with voter apathy I suspect marketing.methodx wouldn't retain that level of approval. The delegate could be fired tomorrow though; that's just how it goes. I'm not a politician (hence why I was just the guy behind the curtain for MethodX) so I'm not going to stand on a soapbox and try to defend the position. It is what it is and I'll keep doing what I'm doing until the votes tell me otherwise.
Title: Re: Review Methodx and pc delegates
Post by: Agent86 on May 20, 2015, 09:30:33 pm
Aren't upcoming changes a good compromise between shareholder control and limited shareholder attention? I mean specifically the role of the delegates (forgot the new exact name of that function) that decide on changes to the network requiring a hard fork which are elected by shareholder.
The degree of voting participation might just have to do with how easy it is to use the software.
I have thought a bit about how voting participating can be increased but couldn't come up with something. I see that it would be a worth while goal to pursue. I guess voter apathy is the biggest weakness of DPOS. Do you have anything in mind there since you stated that more should be done here?

Out of pure curiosity: Are you located in Blacksburg and (how) are you getting paid? What's you role? I always valued you critical contributions and hope all is going well.
(sorry for temp hijacking thread) I think the new proposed system for voting on workers, while an improvement, is still convoluted.  If you want to limit dilution you'd have to try to choose from various denominations of no dilution workers to try find one that works; probably no one will bother.  It limits dilution to the 50BTS/block that again was just arbitrarily chosen after chain launch, but it doesn't require much support for a project to get funds which I don't like.  As far as voting, I know you've expressed concern about how people have to vote for 101 delegates for their votes to fully count and I never liked slates; I worked out a way to determine dynamic delegate number that I think addresses the concern but it's a bit long to post… maybe I'll send you a demo program and explanation if you have interest.  As far as my role; when I quit my job there was something laid out that I liked but it all frustratingly changed and I haven't since seen a business plan that makes economic sense to me.  I've been working on some related things; I filed a patent application on a new consensus mechanism but I've been mostly living off savings which is definitely not sustainable. Feel free to skype me sometime.
Title: Re: Review Methodx and pc delegates
Post by: carpet ride on May 20, 2015, 09:54:41 pm

I haven't since seen a business plan that makes economic sense to me. ... I've been working on some related things; ... Feel free to skype me sometime.

Regarding the business plan are you referring to bitshares or a business that uses the software?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk