BitShares Forum
Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: bytemaster on January 03, 2015, 05:30:37 pm
-
Many of the core developers are critical to the success of BTS and they are implicitly trusted by everyone who downloads the wallet.
For this reason I would like to suggest that the next release of the BTS wallet set the "default" approval for the following core developers:
Me, Toast, Nathan, Vikram, Valentine, James, Ben, Dan N., Eric F.
Each of these guys is implicitly trusted and contributing directly to the github source. This would really help the core team to get and keep the votes necessary without having to worry much about their salary. Users could always "unvote" them.
Thoughts?
-
bad idea .
You can release a "readme.txt" file with the wallet , states that these are the developer who is working on the wallet , suggest people to vote for them .
But do not set it on default on the software ..
Bad PR .
-
Or a "slate list" after open the wallet for the first time
Dialog : Which build in voting slate you like to use ?
1\I don't want to choose any of these
2\core developers
3\Xeroc's
4\xxxxxxxx's
5\yyyyyy's
-
For now I think it's OK, but not so much in the future. Although you're absolutely correct that trust is implicit since they're the one's creating the wallet, the problem I see with it is the inherent bias or conflict of interest it represents. It weakens the minority shareholder representation by giving advantage to those that already have a strong influence.
Let the shareholders wishes be purely represented.
As I said, it's OK for now, and, as a default (for those who don't vote? what does default mean in this context exactly?) it makes perfect sense.
-
Fixing the vote?.. It's unclear why that would be necessary. If default atm adds nothing and votes follow from stakes voting, I can't see where the risk is. It would be adding in politics where it might not be needed?.. Better everyone is on the inside.
If you do go that route then avoid doing it in a way that users are unaware of, as such moves are known to irritate.
It could be made an explicit upfront acknowledgement of default slate, like terms and conditions often are.. suggesting in the absence of you choosing others, these are our core developers and they are recommended to you.. click to vote for these.. implicit then perhaps that users should be voting for someone. The thought then is don't take power from people but appeal to them.
I'd suggest either way, voting needs to be made more obvious in the GUI with perhaps a pop-up introduction that details what the process is and has pointers where to find more information could help encourage people to engage with voting.
I suppose on the upside it weights voting against any kind of future conspiracy but would that not be short lived if it did occur. :-\
-
I'd just go with a yes/no dialog in the next wallet version on first launch.
"Would you like default votes set to support the developer team?"
Or something to that effect. Doing it silently could be bad PR.
EDIT: This is largely a problem because there's a lot of stake currently defaulted to voting for init delegates, correct?
-
I'd just go with a yes/no dialog in the next wallet version on first launch.
"Would you like default votes set to support the developer team?"
Or something to that effect. Doing it silently could be bad PR.
That sounds reasonable and would achieve the same goal.
-
I would say :
The OP that sets a single default option is bad PR and all the FUD would outweigh the potential benefit of securing votes for the devs .
And bad PR shakes confidence in the market , thus affects the price .
Thus , affects the delegate income .
Thus , devs won't have good income after all .
-
Please don't do this, it's gonna be a PR nightmare. I used to think default voting was a good solution but bitcoiners and our competitors are going to turn it into a giant circlejerk that comes up in every single discussion or news piece about bitshares until the end of time.
I don't think we should even have optional slates bundled in the client like btswildpig is suggesting. Influencing votes directly through the client is just one of those things that people will get worked into a frenzy about.
The best solution is to get the wallet working so people can vote safely, and perhaps have offline voting or some of the other features suggested to prevent voting apathy. Even without this I don't think there's a big probability that current core devs will not be voted in relatively fast, and once they're in they'll never get voted out unless they actually deserve it.
-
Many of the core developers are critical to the success of BTS and they are implicitly trusted by everyone who downloads the wallet.
For this reason I would like to suggest that the next release of the BTS wallet set the "default" approval for the following core developers:
Me, Toast, Nathan, Vikram, Valentine, James, Ben, Dan N., Eric F.
Each of these guys is implicitly trusted and contributing directly to the github source. This would really help the core team to get and keep the votes necessary without having to worry much about their salary. Users could always "unvote" them.
Thoughts?
Bad idea.
We all trust these guys, who have done a great job already. But what if someone don't deserve a delegate position anymore, or maybe just don't want this job anymore, for family reason or whatever it is, do we need a required upgrade to kick him out?
The easier BTS wallet becoming to use, the less "default" there will be, the more vote they will get. No need to worry about that.
-
While I am for this in principle, a slate might be a friendly comprise.
BTS wildpig brings up a good point that if a default YES vote for devs was included in the client it might help to continue to draw parallels between this project and memory coin.
A yes/no dev vote during installation would also be a good solution.
Its transparent and offers the same support.
It should be stated though how many delegates each Dev is requesting support for
-
I think that this is a terrible idea leading to a very bad PR and I would delete this thread before many people see that proposal and start spreading unnecessary FUD. We cannot afford any more BTS dumping and if you go down that road this will undoubtedly happen.
-
As per Rune.. keeping the controversy outside the client might be best. Pointers on how to in the wiki and have the forum host detail of slates, with perhaps a sticky slate detail of the core devs by way of strong indicator.
I think there is some advantage in making the core devs more apparent.. perhaps biographies, even if fictional can help their getting votes. Are the ~business cases put somewhere easy to navigate?.. Perhaps could add those to the wiki.
There's a rather good exhibition on at the London V&A about political movements and identity Disobedient Objects (http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/exhibitions/disobedient-objects/), which had me wonder that part of the way community and identity is encouraged is by tokens that acknowledge roles. Perhaps the forum could acknowledge people's roles in some way, so devs are less anonymous among the crowd.
-
I think that this is a terrible idea leading to a very bad PR and I would delete this thread before many people see that proposal and start spreading unnecessary FUD. We cannot afford any more BTS dumping and if you go down that road this will undoubtedly happen.
+5%
How many core developers are not getting voted in anyway?
-
I support a dialog on initial load, giving the user the ability to see who are in the slate, and a link to a thread describing the roles of each dev.
-
How many people can actually vote right now? I can't. Clicking "update vote" does nothing. And I am on the latest version (linux; ....27.2-1; re installed today).
Link to issue: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=12519.msg166051#msg166051
-
I think that this is a terrible idea leading to a very bad PR and I would delete this thread before many people see that proposal and start spreading unnecessary FUD. We cannot afford any more BTS dumping and if you go down that road this will undoubtedly happen.
agree,
they can just come to one word, "privilege". people who spread FUD don't care what you really mean.
-
I think eventually the client needs a 'Delegate Campaigns' tab which shows delegate bids right in the client, possibly also with 'Delegate Slate Campaigns'. We could have a semi-annoying reminder every once in a while, or the delegate campaigns tab glowing a different color until they vote.
-
I think eventually the client needs a 'Delegate Campaigns' tab which shows delegate bids right in the client, possibly also with 'Delegate Slate Campaigns'. We could have a semi-annoying reminder every once in a while, or the delegate campaigns tab glowing a different color until they vote.
+5% +5% One example why this would be a good idea: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=12666.msg169179#msg169179
-
I can't believe that we even discuss this... I don't even want to mention why this is a bad PR idea as I will give bad actors and FUDers food for thought..
I have another proposal as well... Let's make a delegate that is always voted and pay AGS shareholders every week. AGS shareholders were the ones who supported the project without expecting anything in return anyway..
Please delete this thread before too many people see it..
-
How many people can actually vote right now? I can't. Clicking "update vote" does nothing. And I am on the latest version (linux; re installed today).
I can vote fine, v0.4.27.2 (built from source) on linux.
It would also be nice if there was a way for delegates to retire and reject all current votes, instead of just dropping block production and waiting to be voted out. There are still init delegates that have more support than some developers.
-
How many people can actually vote right now? I can't. Clicking "update vote" does nothing. And I am on the latest version (linux; re installed today).
I can vote fine, v0.4.27.2 (built from source) on linux.
It would also be nice if there was a way for delegates to retire and reject all current votes, instead of just dropping block production and waiting to be voted out. There are still init delegates that have more support than some developers.
Voting def. doesn't work for me and I have the latest version (built from source today).
Delegate retiring would make a lot of sense.
-
I can't believe that we even discuss this... I don't even want to mention why this is a bad PR idea as I will give bad actors and FUDers food for thought..
I have another proposal as well... Let's make a delegate that is always voted and pay AGS shareholders every week. AGS shareholders were the ones who supported the project without expecting anything in return anyway..
Please delete this thread before too many people see it..
There's no need to censor this thread. It's obvious that BM just wants a discussion about this since a lot of the core devs are getting scared of losing their paycheck. Losing a core dev is still a lot worse than putting default votes in the official client, but I don't think either needs to happen. We just need to vote these guys in.
How about instead of having default votes, our entire community makes sure to make a lot of noise here in general discussion over the next couple of weeks to get everyone to vote for our core devs. They'll all be voted in soon enough.
-
How many people can actually vote right now? I can't. Clicking "update vote" does nothing. And I am on the latest version (linux; re installed today).
I can vote fine, v0.4.27.2 (built from source) on linux.
It would also be nice if there was a way for delegates to retire and reject all current votes, instead of just dropping block production and waiting to be voted out. There are still init delegates that have more support than some developers.
Yet more info to support the claim one of BitShares fundamental building blocks (i.e. voting) needs much more attention paid to it. Not just the act of voting but also the infrastructure about the delegates, slates, metrics / performance stats etc. IMO most of that should be available inside the wallet.
There's been discussion on various threads about putting info on the blockchain. Delegate info should be published there, if nothing else as a public record of accountability for each delegates performance.
-
I could have delete or edit this OP with better approach .
But I don't know if BM would feel ok about this .... :o
-
I'd just go with a yes/no dialog in the next wallet version on first launch.
"Would you like default votes set to support the developer team?"
Or something to that effect. Doing it silently could be bad PR.
That sounds reasonable and would achieve the same goal.
+5% That would be a good compromise.
But generally I agree that we should be extremely careful with this.
-
Lol.
-
I can't believe that we even discuss this... I don't even want to mention why this is a bad PR idea as I will give bad actors and FUDers food for thought..
I have another proposal as well... Let's make a delegate that is always voted and pay AGS shareholders every week. AGS shareholders were the ones who supported the project without expecting anything in return anyway..
Please delete this thread before too many people see it..
There's no need to censor this thread. It's obvious that BM just wants a discussion about this since a lot of the core devs are getting scared of losing their paycheck. Losing a core dev is still a lot worse than putting default votes in the official client, but I don't think either needs to happen. We just need to vote these guys in.
How about instead of having default votes, our entire community makes sure to make a lot of noise here in general discussion over the next couple of weeks to get everyone to vote for our core devs. They'll all be voted in soon enough.
NOBODY has the right to decide who should be on that list and add it to the system.
Are we talking about some king knight his followers from the throne here?
I can't believe we even discuss this, yeah, so do I.
-
Many of the core developers are critical to the success of BTS and they are implicitly trusted by everyone who downloads the wallet.
For this reason I would like to suggest that the next release of the BTS wallet set the "default" approval for the following core developers:
Me, Toast, Nathan, Vikram, Valentine, James, Ben, Dan N., Eric F.
Each of these guys is implicitly trusted and contributing directly to the github source. This would really help the core team to get and keep the votes necessary without having to worry much about their salary. Users could always "unvote" them.
Thoughts?
my king,
are you crazy ?
-
There's no need to censor this thread. It's obvious that BM just wants a discussion about this since a lot of the core devs are getting scared of losing their paycheck.
The Devs SHOULD get scared of losing their paycheck if they don't continue to do their job as everyone else in real life. Having the devs automatically get elected and paid will make many people very uneasy..
Losing a core dev is still a lot worse than putting default votes in the official client, but I don't think either needs to happen. We just need to vote these guys in.
Of course we all need to make sure that all of these guys are always voted since they are doing a great job. But these guys need also to keep having a large BTS stake to vote for themselves. What happens if they all dump their shares and are still get voted?
How about instead of having default votes, our entire community makes sure to make a lot of noise here in general discussion over the next couple of weeks to get everyone to vote for our core devs. They'll all be voted in soon enough.
Whenever one of the Devs is risking to get voted out, the people managing their delegate should make a lot of noise to the community so they get elected back.
Don't kill the democracy of the voting system by applying these kind of rules. This proposal I feel is contradicting the core principles that BM is evangelizing all this time.
-
you are mad ，my king ，if you do so it`s time for me and every one of my friends to leave . do you not offer people freedom as you said, you offer "freedom"signed by bytemaster.
-
There's no need to censor this thread.
No this thread really should be censored now.
-
As per Rune.. keeping the controversy outside the client might be best. Pointers on how to in the wiki and have the forum host detail of slates, with perhaps a sticky slate detail of the core devs by way of strong indicator.
I think there is some advantage in making the core devs more apparent.. perhaps biographies, even if fictional can help their getting votes. Are the ~business cases put somewhere easy to navigate?.. Perhaps could add those to the wiki.
There's a rather good exhibition on at the London V&A about political movements and identity Disobedient Objects (http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/exhibitions/disobedient-objects/), which had me wonder that part of the way community and identity is encouraged is by tokens that acknowledge roles. Perhaps the forum could acknowledge people's roles in some way, so devs are less anonymous among the crowd.
the core devs need more publicity.Some names are not well known. You should add more on the homepage with a vote button, fix the vote problem - i can vote and i voted and i hope you secured the support of the big chinese whales in advance.
No need to to delete this thread, but why not end the headline with a questionmark ??????????
Maybe we can create something like Discussion-Ideas or something
-
Or a "slate list" after open the wallet for the first time
Dialog : Which build in voting slate you like to use ?
1\I don't want to choose any of these
2\core developers
3\Xeroc's
4\xxxxxxxx's
5\yyyyyy's
I'd just go with a yes/no dialog in the next wallet version on first launch.
"Would you like default votes set to support the developer team?"
Or something to that effect. Doing it silently could be bad PR.
I support a dialog on initial load, giving the user the ability to see who are in the slate, and a link to a thread describing the roles of each dev.
I think eventually the client needs a 'Delegate Campaigns' tab which shows delegate bids right in the client, possibly also with 'Delegate Slate Campaigns'. We could have a semi-annoying reminder every once in a while, or the delegate campaigns tab glowing a different color until they vote.
Lots of great ideas here +5% +5%
-
just keep in mind how difficult it is to find AND KEEP core developers.
-
I vote no. No pun intended. :D
It's a bad idea as what if the shareholders don't like one of the core devs? They have a right to vote them out.
-
It's "opt out" vs "opt in" and it's widely debated issue in many industries. I am for it - it backs our devs and strengthens Bts
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I'd just go with a yes/no dialog in the next wallet version on first launch.
"Would you like default votes set to support the developer team?"
Or something to that effect. Doing it silently could be bad PR.
+5%
Something like this, yes.
-
Default should be a clean no vote.
I don't mind a dialog box upon install, a one time option, asking to add core devs individually to my wallet vote, but they should definitely be off by default.
-
Cat's already out of the bag.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=913075.0
Thanks newmine. I have to ask, if you hate BitShares so much...why the hell do you spend so much time here?
-
Slates need to be made more obvious.
If bytemaster has a slate that reflects the core team he would prefer to see supported, then I would expect votes for that would follow.
Equally if each of the core dev team has a slate.. perhaps defined by priority such as dev or marketing or generic or network stability quality delegates, then those would draw support naturally too.
Those within two degrees of bytemaster would then be a good set that we might expect would define the overall votes.. only in exceptional political circumstances would a vote majority be against what those people chose.
Expecting anyone to know enough about 101+ delegates to choose them wisely, seems odd.. so, some effort needs to be put in to making it simple, if voting and DPOS are to run longterm.
-
Cat's already out of the bag.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=913075.0
Thanks newmine. I have to ask, if you hate BitShares so much...why the hell do you spend so much time here?
On the upside, communication is good.. and there's equally a chance that people from that thread will discover BitShares and like that it is trying to improve by talking alsorts of ideas over.
-
just keep in mind how difficult it is to find AND KEEP core developers.
just keep in mind how difficult it is to find confidence AND KEEP believing in DPOS for the market, keep in mind how easy shareholders walk away and never come back again.
It's the holder to decide instead of employees, right? When we discussed what a DAC means, and Why is Bitshares better than Bitcoin, we said so.
Sorry to say that but we don't need a king, and we don't want to play the game of throne either. If somebody can decide who's on that list, what we need dpos for?
Leave all this to the system itself please.
-
just stick a thread here on bitsharestalk forum where you explain which core devs you support and need anytime...
Sent from my ALCATEL ONE TOUCH 997D
-
just stick a thread here on bitsharestalk forum where you explain which core devs you support and need anytime voted in...
Sent from my ALCATEL ONE TOUCH 997D
Sent from my ALCATEL ONE TOUCH 997D
-
Cat's already out of the bag.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=913075.0
Thanks newmine. I have to ask, if you hate BitShares so much...why the hell do you spend so much time here?
Newmine, what is your motivation in doing this?
Criticize inside (constructive at best), represent outside if you want to help BitShares grow!
-
I agree this is a PR disaster waiting to happen if done by default, especially if there is no change to the current wallet GUI.
If we can't generate enough interest in voting to combat voter apathy in the short term, then second best option is a dialog on first load of the wallet that makes it easy for users to vote in a slate of developers.
I'd argue that this mechanism should allow multiple slates to be loaded with delegates from the whole ecosystem - carousel style. I think it would be fair if the core dev team showed up as the default slate.
I understand BM's thinking on this, and I think it's fair that all core dev's should get at least one 100% slot in the short term. I'm able to make that assessment based on the days I've spent in the forum over the last year - I'm an old timer with and understanding of who the core devs are and what they have done so far. New users and outsiders don't have the information I have and they will call 'scam' if core devs are voted in by default and transparently. Simple as that.
I think it's important that the 'dialog' being discussed, if required, is opt-in and not opt-out. With the correct wording explaining why the core team being voted in is so important I think the votes required would come in. Cass could likely do a great feel-good treatment for this so that people are encouraged to vote 'Yes'. A 'Select All' option as well as being able to vote individual delegates in or out on this dialog would be the way to go.
-
How this thought came through anyway?
When investors complained, you guys said"greedy", "if you don't believe in this, just walk away." And when developers complained just like what's going on here, we can also say "greedy"!If you don't satisfy or you don't feel safe enough or whatever reasons you have, just walk away, go find a better job somewhere else. This is blockchain employment buddy.
-
Cat's already out of the bag.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=913075.0
Thanks newmine. I have to ask, if you hate BitShares so much...why the hell do you spend so much time here?
Newmine, what is your motivation in doing this?
Criticize inside (constructive at best), represent outside if you want to help BitShares grow!
Ignore him, he is a trader who has sold and now hoping for lower prices.
-
I agree with Psuedocops 100%.
Perhaps this brief 'Why you should vote for the devs!" dialog box should appear right after a user registers their account, with options to:
[Vote for All Developers] [Vote Later]
*Remember, you can ALWAYS change your vote at ANY TIME!
-
Cat's already out of the bag.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=913075.0
Thanks newmine. I have to ask, if you hate BitShares so much...why the hell do you spend so much time here?
Newmine, what is your motivation in doing this?
Criticize inside (constructive at best), represent outside if you want to help BitShares grow!
Ignore him, he is a trader who has sold and now hoping for lower prices.
That makes sense.
-
Cat's already out of the bag.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=913075.0
Thanks newmine. I have to ask, if you hate BitShares so much...why the hell do you spend so much time here?
The core idea is awesome, that's why I came.
The constant alterations, the piss poor management of "donated" funds specifically in the marketing aspects, the greed involved in the "dilution" FMV/VOTE BS, the greedy last sharedrop/money grab of AGS acquired BTS, the change of 100% delegates to 50BTS/block and 60K BTS registration fee etc. is what I am hating. My investment has been compromised as now we have a guaranteed sell pressure on the price of BTS since all the "Devs" will be selling BTS to the tune of 4200 BTS*Number of 100% delegates. It has also been compromised because there was supposed to be a professional PR/marketing campaign for the last 6 months and we were constantly lied to in the form of "it's coming, just wait". Version 1.0 was said to be released at the end of November.......then December and now February, so what, they change the code to secure more money for themselves?
I stay, hoping someone forks this garbage back to what it was intended to be.
Cat's already out of the bag.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=913075.0
Thanks newmine. I have to ask, if you hate BitShares so much...why the hell do you spend so much time here?
Newmine, what is your motivation in doing this?
Criticize inside (constructive at best), represent outside if you want to help BitShares grow!
Ignore him, he is a trader who has sold and now hoping for lower prices.
I actually never traded this away. Still have every BTS and bitUSD. More bitUSD now.
-
bad idea... makes it harder for us devs who are contributing and harder to become a delegate
-
283 post from Newmine
it must be love or maybe hate.
I will never spend so much time to something i don't like, and as soon i am not convinced anymore i will sell. Human beings are great because we can adapt to new situations. That is the reason we are the dominant species on Earth.
BitShares has only one problem - we are totally focused on Bytemasters writing. Voting is a problem, but just fix the problems we have with the client and increase the presents of the core devs to the public. Some DEVs never post much here. Toast is a good example he is widely respected and voted to number 1, but some core devs are not well known so they will have a hard time.
In our ecosystem the devs should adapt as well, so get public and post more. I know it is total against the nature of most devs, but it is needed.
-
Just build us a decent vote function that is easy to use and has a prominent position within the interface. Then, I think, you'll get a higher participation rate, since a lot of people who can't figure out how to vote now will be casting their votes then. I've already voted for these guys, but in essence, the message ought to be 'get us a functional client and then we'll vote you in.'
-
Nice job on the bitcointalk fire drill everybody.
Seems there are arsonists among us.
-
Ignore him, he is a trader who has sold and now hoping for lower prices.
I actually never traded this away. Still have every BTS and bitUSD. More bitUSD now.
Liar.
Who are you trying to fool? I hope you get banned here as you're quite clearly trolling to further your own selfish interests. This is nothing short of hurting others and should be prevented.
-
I prefer stupid people are upfront and obvious. He's doing us a favour spawning activity on BitcoinTalk. More threads the better.. 'bad press' like this is weak and then good for the positive attention it will draw from sensible people who are not so easily taken in.
-
bad idea... makes it harder for us devs who are contributing and harder to become a delegate
+5%
-
Setting default delegate approval is pretty high centralisation. This is something everyone is trying to avoid... I hope...
On the other hand there is indeed a voter apathy and this makes the "income" of some of the core devs uncertain. The solution to this serious problem shouldn't degrade the qualities of the system.
A possible (but still controversial) approach to solving this might be:
On the client first startup bring up a list of ALL slates and/or voting window. The user should be able to choose zero, one or more slates/delegates before continuing work. Of course there could be debates about slate/delegate ordering but this should push more people to vote. There could even be an explanation text why voting for core developer's slates is beneficial.
In any case I do NOT think there should be any default selected slates/delegates.
-
I prefer stupid people are upfront and obvious. He's doing us a favour spawning activity on BitcoinTalk. More threads the better.. 'bad press' like this is weak and then good for the positive attention it will draw from sensible people who are not so easily taken in.
Good point. Outrageous flaming posts can work like "click bait" to bring folks in for a whole BitShares promotional thread. Suggest we use such opportunities to recommend our favorite episodes of Max's BitSharesTV videos or Bytemaster's Blog articles. Hard to maintain the fiction of an obvious troll's accusations when you've got recommended links to reasonable people talking about exciting things.
:)
-
I prefer stupid people are upfront and obvious. He's doing us a favour spawning activity on BitcoinTalk. More threads the better.. 'bad press' like this is weak and then good for the positive attention it will draw from sensible people who are not so easily taken in.
Good point. Outrageous flaming posts can work like "click bait" to bring folks in for a whole BitShares promotional thread. Suggest we use such opportunities to recommend our favorite episodes of Max's BitSharesTV videos or Bytemaster's Blog articles. Hard to maintain the fiction of an obvious troll's accusations when you've got recommended links to reasonable people talking about exciting things.
:)
We are trying to cure their insomnia?
-
-100% Definitely a bad idea.
On a side note, the least that we can do on user-side is choose a descriptive delegate name. For example 'projectname-dev.username' is better than just 'username' or 'randomword.username'. This might help casual users get some basic idea about that delegate and make an informed decision.
-
makes me think about the big stink a long time about about microsoft installing IE on computers by default, not giving netscape a chance to compete.
I think I'm opposed. It's a harmless enough proposal, but the spin doctors, as you can see, would have a hayday.
i would like to ask, is there a reason this topic is on your mind BM? are some of the devs having trouble keeping votes?
-
Many of the core developers are critical to the success of BTS and they are implicitly trusted by everyone who downloads the wallet.
The trust we give the dev team when we download the wallet is the same trust that they won't do things like this.
If the devs push this through, me or someone else will fork the code immediately upon new releases with this removed.
Perhaps in the future, it would be best if the dev team had initial private meetings to discuss things like this before bringing them to the forums. This way, when you do bring them to the forums, pros/cons for the idea can be established, as well as alternative ideas.
-
Many of the core developers are critical to the success of BTS and they are implicitly trusted by everyone who downloads the wallet.
The trust we give the dev team when we download the wallet is the same trust that they won't do things like this.
If you pushed this through, me or someone else would fork the code immediately upon new releases with this removed.
Perhaps in the future, it would be best if the dev team had initial private meetings to discuss things like this before bringing them to the forums. This way, when you do bring them to the forums, pros/cons for the idea can be established, as well as alternative ideas.
honestly, i hope he doesn't take that advice. the dev team's willingness to discuss everything with the community this way is one of this projects strong suits I think.
FUDmeisters are gonna FUD no matter how much we give them. discussing this subject is harmless.
We should be concerned about the FUD that springs from actual changes that get implemented. FUD from discussions like this only serves to make more people aware of the project in my opinion.
-
Perhaps in the future, it would be best if the dev team had initial private meetings to discuss things like this before bringing them to the forums. This way, when you do bring them to the forums, pros/cons for the idea can be established, as well as alternative ideas.
Surely that's a bad idea?.. we want to avoid centralisation in all forms. Over time such a habit would be a liability. I much prefer the way thoughts are thrown out there. We can hammer them down fast enough.. but having a group think is useful for spawning other ideas. Having teacher tell us the way it is and provide only a limited set of options, isn't always best. That said, as we navigate new legislation and where advice has been taken on matters of law etc, then the tone of what is proposed can be different enough to indicate depth to an idea. In future there will be heritage to draw on too but better an open community thinking about all options than having devs wasting their time thinking simple thoughts that we can do.
-
I prefer stupid people are upfront and obvious. He's doing us a favour spawning activity on BitcoinTalk. More threads the better.. 'bad press' like this is weak and then good for the positive attention it will draw from sensible people who are not so easily taken in.
Good point. Outrageous flaming posts can work like "click bait" to bring folks in for a whole BitShares promotional thread. Suggest we use such opportunities to recommend our favorite episodes of Max's BitSharesTV videos or Bytemaster's Blog articles. Hard to maintain the fiction of an obvious troll's accusations when you've got recommended links to reasonable people talking about exciting things.
:)
We are trying to cure their insomnia?
LOL :) Well, the point is leave something you'd like to share for people to find, rather than just mount a defense. Refuting the OP is worthwhile. Leaving something positive behind is priceless.
Normally, we have to pay to get clicks. Let's use the free one's trolls go out and attract for us.
I think this is a specialty skill our NullStreet marketers should advise us on. How to do jujutsu marketing.
Maybe even develop a troll response press kit?
-
honestly, i hope he doesn't take that advice. the dev team's willingness to discuss everything with the community this way is one of this projects strong suits I think.
FUDmeisters are gonna FUD no matter how much we give them. discussing this subject is harmless.
We should be concerned about the FUD that springs from actual changes that get implemented. FUD from discussions like this only serves to make more people aware of the project in my opinion.
A balance is desirable, and I think this thread demonstrates that we have not achieved balance.
When you are with your spouse, you do not say anything and everything that comes to your mind. There is an intelligent filter, partly based on empathy for the other and being sensitive to their perceptions. This preempted empathy can lead you to new understandings without even needing to actually talk to the person/group, i.e. "Shareholders will probably be upset with this. Why would they be upset? Perhaps my current logical understanding is missing a few essential pieces."
When I say 'private dev meetings', it sounds more official or dramatic than what I mean. It could simply be a text convo over Skype with Toast that lasts 10 minutes.
-
"Good" idea, but we have to change our slogan from "Do you want to be hired by the blockchain?" to "Do you want to be born with the blockchain?" -5%, -5%, -5%
BTS is an experiment, and it is the investors who are paying for it. If BM is using his own money to do this experiment, he can absolutely do whatever he wants. Unfortunately, it is not.
Any people who are involved in this experiment, no matter investors or developers, by default should take risk. If you can not tolerate the pressure due to the risk, just leave. Nothing is supposed to be guaranteed, including the blockchain salary.
-
what about the first 10-20 place delegates will get paid for 3 months further even when voted out (but stop producing blogs of course for security reasons ) so top delegates have at least a minimum 3 months security at any moment ?
Sent from my ALCATEL ONE TOUCH 997D
-
I wasn't suggesting any thing be guaranteed. Core developers could always be voted out even if by default they were approved.
It is clear there is a lot of controversy over this, so it will not be implemented.
-
Some of the names has never or rarely come to forum. So the users have to trust them because Dan trust them? Why can't they post their own proposal? This thread is not merely centralization, you are trying to become a king.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
We need to be a little patient with this model.
Many devs prefer technical complexity to social complexity.
Asking them to participate in a continuous job interview is asking a lot.
I expect that those of us who enjoy interacting with people are going to have to pitch in and help them out a bit here. Bytemaster has told us who he would like to have on his team. He is very, very, very picky.
If we want BitShares to succeed, we won't ask alpha-geeks to perform unnatural acts.
:)
-
Wow just saw this now. Woke up very excited but now see another PR snafu. Again obviously a no go area, running it by an outsider would have raised a red flag immediately.
-
We need to be a little patient with this model.
Many devs prefer technical complexity to social complexity.
Asking them to participate in a continuous job interview is asking a lot.
I expect that those of us who enjoy interacting with people are going to have to pitch in and help them out a bit here. Bytemaster has told us who he would like to have on his team. He is very, very, very picky.
If we want BitShares to succeed, we won't ask alpha-geeks to perform unnatural acts.
:)
Excellent point. Sometimes these forums are an absolute shitshow, can't say I blame them for wanting to avoid the crossfire here.
-
I think it did no damage overall. The Bitcointalk thread was more positive than negative for PR overall especially at the end...
-
I think it did no damage overall. The Bitcointalk thread was more positive than negative for PR overall especially at the end...
I haven't looked at it yet.
Regardless Bytemaster can carry at least 5 devs. In the sense he can just say these are the 5 guys I and we really need to keep BitShares at the top of it's game.
They will not be without a job and without shareholder support in the next few years. Guaranteed imo.
Edit: Read it, it's not great tbh, one more thing to point too & on a crypto day where positivity not negativity is needed, not the end of the world though. But yeah everyone can appreciate we need a great core dev team that works well together. The majority will default to BM on who's best in that mix for the next year/two at least provided the list is not too big.
-
Newmine likes to air-out BTS' old baggage, but there is some sort of relief in that it is part of the BitShares evolving history and openly discussing it may have some positive future benefits - such as the realization that we are one of the most open public development networks happening in crypto. This is not one of Bytemaster's better ideas, but glad part of his delegate role is to think of ideas and discuss them with us.
Every delegate should have objectives that are aligned to take us to 1.0.
-
You cannot set default vote for core developing , but you can
1.set a select choice box let people select delegate slate recommended by developing.
2.the clients include a .txt file as the default voting delegate but the user can choice does not use it
-
Why all u people got problem? Wat is big deal about Stan, Dan and devs as for ever delegates? What go can wrong?
Hear me...
Vote not that important. Why u care if u get vote? What does your vote matter? Noone care what u think. It truth.
My country is no vote! My country greatest country whole world. Leaders picked for us. Leaders are great men. GREAT MEN LEAD CHINA TO WORLD DOMINATON!
So wat u don't like them. They probaly don't like u! We need KICK OUT TRATORS! STAN AND DAN FOR EVER!
-
i would suggest, that Bytemaster should post in the future like this:
"How can we ensure, that the core devs, get enough votes, to get elected or stay in place?"
This would let to a discussion and not a no or yes thread!
and we would have in the end a good solution the community think it would provide the needed votes.
Maybe Bytemaster should Stan start the post, because this community is so fixated on his words - :D
-
Agree, try presenting the underlying problem at issue clearly in OPs and then let a few posts roll by before suggesting your own solution in the comments. Fun experiment ;)
-
are u drunk? this is a stupid idea.
-
Many of the core developers are critical to the success of BTS and they are implicitly trusted by everyone who downloads the wallet.
For this reason I would like to suggest that the next release of the BTS wallet set the "default" approval for the following core developers:
Me, Toast, Nathan, Vikram, Valentine, James, Ben, Dan N., Eric F.
Each of these guys is implicitly trusted and contributing directly to the github source. This would really help the core team to get and keep the votes necessary without having to worry much about their salary. Users could always "unvote" them.
Thoughts?
Bad idea! This corrupts the whole resemblance of democracy which is critical to marketing DPoS!
-
For now I think it's OK, but not so much in the future. Although you're absolutely correct that trust is implicit since they're the one's creating the wallet, the problem I see with it is the inherent bias or conflict of interest it represents. It weakens the minority shareholder representation by giving advantage to those that already have a strong influence.
Let the shareholders wishes be purely represented.
As I said, it's OK for now, and, as a default (for those who don't vote? what does default mean in this context exactly?) it makes perfect sense.
This is not okay now or ever. It's a bad idea and could destroy the credibility of DPoS. It will make the whole network appear centralized around the core developers in the same way Bitcoin mining appears centralized.
The core developers are important but you have to trust the community above all else to make rational decisions. If core developers start using their influence over the code to try to force the community to vote for them that could be the end of DPoS.
I really hope this question doesn't result in a crash in the BTS price because even the hint that it could occur could create a dumping frenzy.
-
I've read a lot of this thread and the overwhelming response is negative as expected given the goals of the community. Asked and Answered. This openness to community opinion is fantastic.
Many applications (Office, Dropbox, etc.) come with opening animations or tutorials that briefly describe, in a few slides or few seconds, the main points about the product and how to use it. This is where an effective pitch can be made about the importance of voting to the ecosystem.
-
I've read a lot of this thread and the overwhelming response is negative as expected given the goals of the community. Asked and Answered. This openness to community opinion is fantastic.
Many applications (Office, Dropbox, etc.) come with opening animations or tutorials that briefly describe, in a few slides or few seconds, the main points about the product and how to use it. This is where an effective pitch can be made about the importance of voting to the ecosystem.
You can require voting before the first trades can be initiated. You can let people vote by teams and have "Team Invictus". Every old timer knows what Invictus means and new people probably don't have as many shares. Other teams should be included as well though.
I don't know if you're calling them teams or slates but the point is people need to think of Invictus as a group and be able to vote for all of Invictus with a single click. There should be more robust features as well such as time limited vote selections so that the vote expires after a set period of time has elapsed.
-
You cannot set default vote for core developing , but you can
1.set a select choice box let people select delegate slate recommended by developing.
2.the clients include a .txt file as the default voting delegate but the user can choice does not use it
+5%
3. or a description 'Core Developer team' in the Delegate listing, so users know who the better delegates to vote.
-
are u drunk? this is a stupid idea.
Oh geez. He made a proposal, the community answered. No reason to take this to high school antics.
-
Many of the core developers are critical to the success of BTS and they are implicitly trusted by everyone who downloads the wallet.
For this reason I would like to suggest that the next release of the BTS wallet set the "default" approval for the following core developers:
Me, Toast, Nathan, Vikram, Valentine, James, Ben, Dan N., Eric F.
Please list the core developers delegate names here so they can be easily identified
-
Default should be a clean no vote.
I don't mind a dialog box upon install, a one time option, asking to add core devs individually to my wallet vote, but they should definitely be off by default.
I like this approach ... make it a popup upon first launch .. maybe opt-in some more delegates for the popup too .. some for development, marketing, backbone etc. ... some 100% pay some 3% pay .. just so that the initial votes are non-blank ..
-
What would be very interesting is a thread with the official lists of devs so we can vote. If that doesn't exist yet.
-
What would be very interesting is a thread with the official lists of devs so we can vote. If that doesn't exist yet.
+5%
-
We need to be a little patient with this model.
Many devs prefer technical complexity to social complexity.
Asking them to participate in a continuous job interview is asking a lot.
I expect that those of us who enjoy interacting with people are going to have to pitch in and help them out a bit here. Bytemaster has told us who he would like to have on his team. He is very, very, very picky.
If we want BitShares to succeed, we won't ask alpha-geeks to perform unnatural acts.
:)
You do realize this is antithetical to the entire premise of being "hired by the blockchain"? In other words you are implying that it is impossible for stake-voters to accurately quantify the value of prospective hirees (because it is an "unnatural act" for devs to effectively market their services to the stakeholders).
-
We need to be a little patient with this model.
Many devs prefer technical complexity to social complexity.
Asking them to participate in a continuous job interview is asking a lot.
I expect that those of us who enjoy interacting with people are going to have to pitch in and help them out a bit here. Bytemaster has told us who he would like to have on his team. He is very, very, very picky.
If we want BitShares to succeed, we won't ask alpha-geeks to perform unnatural acts.
:)
You do realize this is antithetical to the entire premise of being "hired by the blockchain"? In other words you are implying that it is impossible for stake-voters to accurately quantify the value of prospective hirees (because it is an "unnatural act" for devs to effectively market their services to the stakeholders).
That's the whole point of this discussion: to figure out how to balance the need for core developers to stay funded + keep it open, transparent, democratic, and decentralized. BitShares needs core developers, but we can't be pre-marking anyone's ballots either! ;)
-
We need to be a little patient with this model.
Many devs prefer technical complexity to social complexity.
Asking them to participate in a continuous job interview is asking a lot.
I expect that those of us who enjoy interacting with people are going to have to pitch in and help them out a bit here. Bytemaster has told us who he would like to have on his team. He is very, very, very picky.
If we want BitShares to succeed, we won't ask alpha-geeks to perform unnatural acts.
:)
You do realize this is antithetical to the entire premise of being "hired by the blockchain"? In other words you are implying that it is impossible for stake-voters to accurately quantify the value of prospective hirees (because it is an "unnatural act" for devs to effectively market their services to the stakeholders).
No, it just helps define what that has to mean. If the block chain wants to employ the people it needs, then it must adapt to find a way to employ them.
We are in a phase where each delegate slot funds a part time employee, so to get a team of employees with all the right skills (including the ability to promote their own contributions) you need to have delegates work together to fill in their respective strengths and weaknesses.
Eventually, each delegate will be a small business. 101 teams. Each team will be a mix of skills, presumably centered around someone who is able to represent that team's capabilities to the stakeholders.
So, until then, you may have to take the word of one trusted delegate about the contributions of several others she is working with.
-
just keep in mind how difficult it is to find AND KEEP core developers.
just keep in mind how difficult it is to find confidence AND KEEP believing in DPOS for the market, keep in mind how easy shareholders walk away and never come back again.
It's the holder to decide instead of employees, right? When we discussed what a DAC means, and Why is Bitshares better than Bitcoin, we said so.
Sorry to say that but we don't need a king, and we don't want to play the game of throne either. If somebody can decide who's on that list, what we need dpos for?
Leave all this to the system itself please.
@callmeluc you're right on target. Just poll the shareholders once a month or somethin. The code will decide which devs have contributed the most and those are the top (say, 10?) Devs who will appear in the poll that month. Shareholders can, not must, pick their dev choice of the month (in the client software). How do we track who's contributed the most.. i don't know, but i do know that we don't need a king to decide who is up for votes. We already have a system like that.
-
I would say do it for all dev's not just core dev's... since we are in the dev cycle its important for all devs to stay and even bring more in if possible.. doing this will push away other dev's like us as we would feel less important. Any new devs will also see this and say meh forget it... im not in the "in" club.