BitShares Forum
Other => Graveyard => KeyID => Topic started by: toast on October 14, 2014, 05:52:04 am
-
There are two delegates that have more votes than all the init delegates which have 4%.
This means there is sufficient stake for someone to take control of the network. The options are to bring more dev funds online, or see if existing vested interests will pick "good" delegates.
I'm not bringing more stake online yet... What's the worst that can happen? We find out shareholders are not rational after all? There's like 10 very active technical delegates who I'm sure have lots of stake online and trading, with opportunity to pay workers via dilution..
-
or see if existing vested interests will pick "good" delegates.
this. I haven't had the opportunity to vote using my stake yet because I haven't been able to import my wallets/keys. I don't love using the console and haven't seen any instructional help for importing BTC (for AGS) and PTS wallets. I think existing vested interests could be trusted as they have little to gain by doing anything malicious at this point. Once we get a few things worked out with the client I think we'll see more delegate voting away from centralized source.
-
Hmm thanks for this call to action. I recently imported funds but went to bed and forgot to vote with my (meager) stake. I'll do so now and hopefully others with much larger stakes will do the same.
-
I will make my stake available this evening and make votes for delegates I personally trust ..
would it make sense for me to add the init delegates?!
-
Now is the time to bring in 101 100% delegates.
-
I noticed this too, there are a couple more delegates who are very close to having enough votes as well in the places 102-110ish. I tend to think anyone with that big of a stake will have the best interests of the system in mind anyway, so I'm not that bothered about this. It does highlight the lack of voting in general though.
We're currently at 23.5% of genesis claimed, but only 4% of total is voting, or 17% of claimed stake. Part of the problem imo, and this is the same for BTSX, is that big stakeholders generally vote only for their own delegates and their close friends. Very few delegates/stakeholders do what Xeroc has done for example and prepare a big slate of delegates. I've done so myself for BTSX, and am currently voting for around 50 delegates I think, but doing so is a little too much work for most people.
What we need IMO is an easy way to browse and select delegate slates, preferably inside the client. Ideally you would be able to see all the delegates in a slate, and add/remove delegates from that list as you see fit before choosing to copy it for yourself.
Alternatively I could add this to my site if a call were added to the toolkit similar to dns:/bitsharesblocks-dev1/approve, but to select a slate, something like: dns:/bitsharesblocks-dev1/copyslate
This would allow third party sites to present slates for easy perusal by users.
-
hello toast,thanks for your attention. we are not big stake holder.Five members in our team totally hold 0.4% votes.We have been working for the Chinese community and maybe people like our job，so they vote for us.If they dont trust us anymore ,I think they will cancel the votes.It dosn`t seem to be a problem we get the support by the community,right? :)
-
Actually we are not big stake holders, therefore we don't have the ability to control the network. For situations like this and possibly more in the future, I think we could implement some command to observe the ditribution of votes of designated delegates, so that big shareholders trying to control multiple delegates can be distinguished.
-
:'( :'( :'(
-
Nice to see that your high approval rating is simply a result of you doing a good job! :)
The voting history for their delegates confirm this, as the "big" votes are composed of many different voting transactions with stakes ranging from ~100k to ~19mill. Other than toast's votes no other votes exceed 19million, as you can see at the bottom here:
http://dns.bitsharesblocks.com/delegates/delegate?name=x1-sun
-
Nice to see that your high approval rating is simply a result of you doing a good job! :)
The voting history for their delegates confirm this, as the "big" votes are composed of many different voting transactions with stakes ranging from ~100k to ~19mill. Other than toast's votes no other votes exceed 19million, as you can see at the bottom here:
http://dns.bitsharesblocks.com/delegates/delegate?name=x1-sun
Thank you!
-
as far as I know, 3I might be the only one has more than 1% of DNS. These close-4-percent-delegates（sun,lion,...） get support from many shareholders. None of them is the big shark.
-
helloworld1 is also among the top 101, but it's a result of good reputation. They obey the rules and they are big fan of DNS, I don't see why they are dangerous to the network. If one day, some very strange delegates jump in top 101, then we need to take care of it. :)
-
I never understood the reason why not 1 share 1 vote in the original BitsharesX system, that would resolve this problem of the biggest stakeholder controlling all 101 delegates.
-
that would resolve this problem of the biggest stakeholder controlling all 101 delegates.
that only holds true if the biggest stakeholder has 51%+ shares ..
otherwise it holds only true if people are to lazy to vote
-
I am very interested to see how proper Delegate pay has the potential to change the game. The delegates that are active in BitShares X should definitively campaign on DNS as well. Many of us will vote on Delegates based on their reputation across multiple DACs.. To have no inflation and no premine in BitShares X was a move that was made possible by the AGS fund, and has left most Delegates waiting for a brighter future with only a few brave souls investing properly in infrastructure for the BitShares ecosystem. This will change rapidly once Delegate income goes up an order of magnitude (either by BitShares X going for a few percent inflation, or one of the DACs going up 10x).
-
I never understood the reason why not 1 share 1 vote in the original BitsharesX system, that would resolve this problem of the biggest stakeholder controlling all 101 delegates.
It is still like this, just 1 vote in 101 distinct elections
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
-
I am very interested to see how proper Delegate pay has the potential to change the game. The delegates that are active in BitShares X should definitively campaign on DNS as well. Many of us will vote on Delegates based on their reputation across multiple DACs.. To have no inflation and no premine in BitShares X was a move that was made possible by the AGS fund, and has left most Delegates waiting for a brighter future with only a few brave souls investing properly in infrastructure for the BitShares ecosystem. This will change rapidly once Delegate income goes up an order of magnitude (either by BitShares X going for a few percent inflation, or one of the DACs going up 10x).
I'm thinking of created riverhead-del-server-1 for DNS with a 1% pay to compensate for chain/seed/delegate vps nodes and hopefully soon a faucet. My hope is that it will also help cover some of the cost of my 5% BitSharesX delegate. Once BTSX takes off and the 5% is meaningful I can set the DNS one to 0% again.
-
that would resolve this problem of the biggest stakeholder controlling all 101 delegates.
that only holds true if the biggest stakeholder has 51%+ shares ..
otherwise it holds only true if people are to lazy to vote
I think it's easily possible to do so without 51%, for example if I have 15% of stake in BTSX, I could obtain 50%+ of the BTSX delegate seats right now.
Sure, other stake holders could vote someone else, but they have to be extremely organized and all vote for the same set of delegates to out compete my stake. Otherwise they have no chance against my stake. It's not laziness, they could all voted 101 delegates, but just different sets of 101 delegates.
-
that would resolve this problem of the biggest stakeholder controlling all 101 delegates.
that only holds true if the biggest stakeholder has 51%+ shares ..
otherwise it holds only true if people are to lazy to vote
I think it's easily possible to do so without 51%, for example if I have 15% of stake in BTSX, I could obtain 50%+ of the BTSX delegate seats right now.
Sure, other stake holders could vote someone else, but they have to be extremely organized and all vote for the same set of delegates to out compete my stake. Otherwise they have no chance against my stake. It's not laziness, they could all voted 101 delegates, but just different sets of 101 delegates.
So you're saying all the rest of the stake wouldn't able to agree to any delegate with even 15% approval, so the entity that controls the DAC is the one with 15% stake. Why should the rest get control if they do not have anything specific way of operating the DAC that they want?
-
Without approval voting and using your assumptions, you'd end up with the 15% stake controlling a majority of delegates anyway.
-
that would resolve this problem of the biggest stakeholder controlling all 101 delegates.
that only holds true if the biggest stakeholder has 51%+ shares ..
otherwise it holds only true if people are to lazy to vote
I think it's easily possible to do so without 51%, for example if I have 15% of stake in BTSX, I could obtain 50%+ of the BTSX delegate seats right now.
Sure, other stake holders could vote someone else, but they have to be extremely organized and all vote for the same set of delegates to out compete my stake. Otherwise they have no chance against my stake. It's not laziness, they could all voted 101 delegates, but just different sets of 101 delegates.
So you're saying all the rest of the stake wouldn't able to agree to any delegate with even 15% approval, so the entity that controls the DAC is the one with 15% stake. Why should the rest get control if they do not have anything specific way of operating the DAC that they want?
ok I see what you are saying, basically it's similar to how a regular corporation would work, the shareholders that are most organized, is able to obtain control of the corporation.