BitShares Forum

Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: toast on January 26, 2015, 08:37:42 pm

Title: 100% burn+"filler" delegates and the "cutoff" delegate
Post by: toast on January 26, 2015, 08:37:42 pm
We might be interested to see how many paid delegates are only there because shareholders cannot coordinate to elect enough low-pay delegates to force them out. Fortunately we can use delegates like proposals and measure shareholder intent.


I've made a 0% delegate:

paid-delegate-cutoff.misc.nikolai

(He's 1% right now because a wallet bug prevents me from making a transaction to make him 0% - I'll get to it)



我们或许有兴趣看到多少付费的受托人在领工资只是因为股东们没办法调集去选足够的低支付率受托人去挤走他们。幸运的是我们可以用受托人当作是提议并且去衡量股东们的想法。我已经做了一个0%受托人。


paid-delegate-cutoff.misc.nikolai
它现在是1%的支付率因为钱包当前不允许做0%的受托人,不过我会修正这个问题。

如果这个人比真正的受托人得到更多的票,就像股东们的投票在说不认可他,因为给这个受托人的投票就是给尽量多的0%受托人投票。这会让股东们在知道它们有足够的共识去改变现状的时候通过填充足够的低支付率受托人而实现改变。
Title: Re: 100% burn+"filler" delegates and the "cutoff" delegate
Post by: Ander on January 26, 2015, 09:00:31 pm
We should have more of these, shareholder choice is good.

Its great that we have lots of candidates with proposals to help grow bitshares who are getting elected, but we also need to ability to later vote out the ones who we decide arent providing enough value. 

Also, while its a very small factor, replacing 3% delegates with 0-1% delegates that also provide feeds is also good for slightly reducing dilution.
Title: Re: 100% burn+"filler" delegates and the "cutoff" delegate
Post by: xeroc on January 26, 2015, 09:10:58 pm
Gonna put you on my slate when back at the computer
Title: Re: 100% burn+"filler" delegates and the "cutoff" delegate
Post by: arhag on January 26, 2015, 09:13:48 pm
It is really difficult for the stakeholders to control their votes precisely to get the approval voting of the "paid-delegate-cutoff.misc.nikolai" delegate to their desired value. But I appreciate the intent despite the hacky solution.

Can we get a new UIA to automatically be allocated to a snapshot of another asset (such as BTS) by the 0.8.0 milestone along with the UIA proposal voting feature so that we can determine true BTS stakeholder consensus on any topic?
Title: Re: 100% burn+"filler" delegates and the "cutoff" delegate
Post by: toast on January 26, 2015, 09:16:20 pm
It is really difficult for the stakeholders to control their votes precisely to get the approval voting of the "paid-delegate-cutoff.misc.nikolai" delegate to their desired value. But I appreciate the intent despite the hacky solution.

Can we get a new UIA to automatically be allocated to a snapshot of another asset (such as BTS) by the 0.8.0 milestone along with the UIA proposal voting feature so that we can determine true BTS stakeholder consensus on any topic?

we removed the requirement that stuff in the slate be a real delegate ID so that we can do opinion polls as part of the normal voting process without big changes. Using this for governance is something I will be working on
Title: Re: 100% burn+"filler" delegates and the "cutoff" delegate
Post by: arhag on January 26, 2015, 09:17:44 pm
we removed the requirement that stuff in the slate be a real delegate ID so that we can do opinion polls as part of the normal voting process without big changes. Using this for governance is something I will be working on

Interesting... Are there size limits on the bytes that can be stuffed in the "slate" other than the maximum transaction size?

Also, is your work on BTS governance going to include changes to blockchain consensus so that it interprets some of the data in the slate in a special "binding" way similar to how the delegate IDs are treated in a special way? Or is your definition of BTS governance to determine consensus on non-binding proposals and simply allow the delegates to execute them (perhaps through code upgrades and hard forks as necessary)?
Title: Re: 100% burn+"filler" delegates and the "cutoff" delegate
Post by: toast on January 26, 2015, 09:21:44 pm
we removed the requirement that stuff in the slate be a real delegate ID so that we can do opinion polls as part of the normal voting process without big changes. Using this for governance is something I will be working on

Interesting... Are there size limits on the bytes that can be stuffed in the "slate" other than the maximum transaction size?

You can fit 111 integers
Title: Re: 100% burn+"filler" delegates and the "cutoff" delegate
Post by: arhag on January 26, 2015, 09:24:49 pm
You can fit 111 integers

Wait does this mean you can either vote for delegates with your BTS stake or use the space for other voting stuff but not both at the same time?
Title: Re: 100% burn+"filler" delegates and the "cutoff" delegate
Post by: toast on January 26, 2015, 09:29:26 pm
You can fit 111 integers

Wait does this mean you can either vote for delegates with your BTS stake or use the space for other voting stuff but not both at the same time?

You tell me
Title: Re: 100% burn+"filler" delegates and the "cutoff" delegate
Post by: arhag on January 26, 2015, 09:39:29 pm
You can fit 111 integers

Wait does this mean you can either vote for delegates with your BTS stake or use the space for other voting stuff but not both at the same time?

You tell me

To clarify for anyone else interested in the answer to the question:

To start with, the 111 integer slots currently restricted only for delegate voting has been relaxed to either refer to a delegate or just an arbitrary int for whatever purpose (say referring to a specific proposal). So you could in theory vote for 101 delegates and have 10 extra integers for other unofficial proposal voting purposes.
Title: Re: 100% burn+"filler" delegates and the "cutoff" delegate
Post by: xeroc on January 26, 2015, 09:44:58 pm
You can fit 111 integers

Wait does this mean you can either vote for delegates with your BTS stake or use the space for other voting stuff but not both at the same time?

You tell me

To clarify for anyone else interested in the answer to the question:

To start with, the 111 integer slots currently restricted only for delegate voting has been relaxed to either refer to a delegate or just an arbitrary int for whatever purpose (say referring to a specific proposal). So you could in theory vote for 101 delegates and have 10 extra integers for other unofficial proposal voting purposes.
Cool .. thx for the clarification
Title: Re: 100% burn+"filler" delegates and the "cutoff" delegate
Post by: wackou on January 26, 2015, 09:54:34 pm
Added you to my slate
Title: Re: 100% burn+"filler" delegates and the "cutoff" delegate
Post by: arhag on January 26, 2015, 10:05:46 pm
Gonna put you on my slate when back at the computer

Added you to my slate


Won't adding this delegate to other trusted delegates' slate compromise its entire purpose?

Don't we want stakeholders to explicitly vote for this delegate if they believe its approval rating is lower than what they think the vote-of-no-confidence threshold should be and to take away some or all of their vote if they think the approval rating is higher than what they think the threshold should be? If this is added to the slate of well established delegates, then I don't think we can really infer much from the approval rating of the "paid-delegate-cutoff.misc.nikolai" delegate, which defeats its entire purpose.
Title: Re: 100% burn+"filler" delegates and the "cutoff" delegate
Post by: wasthatawolf on January 26, 2015, 10:21:52 pm
Won't adding this delegate to other trusted delegates' slate compromise its entire purpose?

Don't we want stakeholders to explicitly vote for this delegate if they believe its approval rating is lower than what they think the vote-of-no-confidence threshold should be and to take away some or all of their vote if they think the approval rating is higher than what they think the threshold should be? If this is added to the slate of well established delegates, then I don't think we can really infer much from the approval rating of the "paid-delegate-cutoff.misc.nikolai" delegate, which defeats its entire purpose.

Wherever the cutoff delegate ends up will be a function of several factors: actual voter intent, overall voter participation, and the wants and needs of large stakeholders.  Trying to distinguish which factor caused it to move the most is going to be pretty difficult.

I'm not convinced this method is any better or worse than a traditional vote.
Title: Re: 100% burn+"filler" delegates and the "cutoff" delegate
Post by: toast on January 26, 2015, 11:20:56 pm
Gonna put you on my slate when back at the computer

Added you to my slate


Won't adding this delegate to other trusted delegates' slate compromise its entire purpose?

Don't we want stakeholders to explicitly vote for this delegate if they believe its approval rating is lower than what they think the vote-of-no-confidence threshold should be and to take away some or all of their vote if they think the approval rating is higher than what they think the threshold should be? If this is added to the slate of well established delegates, then I don't think we can really infer much from the approval rating of the "paid-delegate-cutoff.misc.nikolai" delegate, which defeats its entire purpose.

That depends on what you think the role of recommendations are and how people use them. I don't think it defeats the point at all. If people know the function of this delegate then it lets us see what the intersection of stake-vote thinks, not the union. It is different when you don't have full participation
Title: Re: 100% burn+"filler" delegates and the "cutoff" delegate
Post by: Ander on January 26, 2015, 11:28:07 pm
Is the plan to modify the code such that any paid delegate (>3% pay) which has less than the number of votes of this cutoff delegate will not get paid (or will be paid at a 3% rate instead?) 

This would essentially allow shareholders to vote for a bar of approval wihch must be crossed in order to be a paid delegate which is higher than simply "be one of the 101 with the most votes".


I'm not sure if thats a good idea or not, but its interesting.  Is that the idea behind this delegate?
Title: Re: 100% burn+"filler" delegates and the "cutoff" delegate
Post by: toast on January 26, 2015, 11:33:58 pm
Is the plan to modify the code such that any paid delegate (>3% pay) which has less than the number of votes of this cutoff delegate will not get paid (or will be paid at a 3% rate instead?) 

This would essentially allow shareholders to vote for a bar of approval wihch must be crossed in order to be a paid delegate which is higher than simply "be one of the 101 with the most votes".


I'm not sure if thats a good idea or not, but its interesting.  Is that the idea behind this delegate?

This is completely informal, absolutely no breaking changes. It just lets us learn shareholder intent.
Title: Re: 100% burn+"filler" delegates and the "cutoff" delegate
Post by: Tuck Fheman on January 26, 2015, 11:37:49 pm
Gonna put you on my slate when back at the computer

Added you to my slate


Won't adding this delegate to other trusted delegates' slate compromise its entire purpose?

Don't we want stakeholders to explicitly vote for this delegate if they believe its approval rating is lower than what they think the vote-of-no-confidence threshold should be and to take away some or all of their vote if they think the approval rating is higher than what they think the threshold should be? If this is added to the slate of well established delegates, then I don't think we can really infer much from the approval rating of the "paid-delegate-cutoff.misc.nikolai" delegate, which defeats its entire purpose.

 +5%
Title: Re: 100% burn+"filler" delegates and the "cutoff" delegate
Post by: ripplexiaoshan on January 27, 2015, 01:08:41 am
Very cool idea +5% +5% +5% It will be a good indicator. Since there is currently no down vote option, all delegates below the "filter" delegate should work harder to gain more votes!
Title: Re: 100% burn+"filler" delegates and the "cutoff" delegate
Post by: ebit on January 27, 2015, 07:42:18 am
 +5%
Title: Re: 100% burn+"filler" delegates and the "cutoff" delegate
Post by: wackou on January 27, 2015, 09:43:57 am
Gonna put you on my slate when back at the computer

Added you to my slate


Won't adding this delegate to other trusted delegates' slate compromise its entire purpose?

Don't we want stakeholders to explicitly vote for this delegate if they believe its approval rating is lower than what they think the vote-of-no-confidence threshold should be and to take away some or all of their vote if they think the approval rating is higher than what they think the threshold should be? If this is added to the slate of well established delegates, then I don't think we can really infer much from the approval rating of the "paid-delegate-cutoff.misc.nikolai" delegate, which defeats its entire purpose.

Well, I believe this delegate and voting for another delegate's slate are 2 orthogonal concepts, I don't see a problem there. If I vote for another delegate's slate, I see it as a way for me to "delegate" my vote to someone else, and if that someone else thinks the cutoff delegate should be voted in, then that's fair game. This does make more sense indeed if the slate is the slate of all delegates you vote, instead of just a few more delegates that you want to add to your already partially complete list of delegates, so putting the cutoff delegate on a slate of 5 delegates makes less sense than putting it on a slate of 80 delegates (unless you think there should only be 5 paid delegate, of course).

The other point is: this delegate is just an indicator anyway, it doesn't hold any "juridical" value, and it is a 0% delegate anyway, which might be seen as a good thing to some (although the diff between a 3% and a 0% one is not so big seeing the number of 100% delegates currently voted in)
Title: Re: 100% burn+"filler" delegates and the "cutoff" delegate
Post by: Tuck Fheman on January 27, 2015, 08:53:16 pm
I have no clue what I'm talking about, but from what little I know about how things work ... the "slate" appears to be very exploitable, no?

The creator of the slate can change it at any time, is that correct?

So if I create a slate and show publicly that it contains votes for a certain list of delegates that I know others will approve, I get a bunch of votes for my delegate (and my slate). 

Then I change the slate delegate list without notifying anyone else and .... what?  What could I do? I could (with enough votes) usher in a new set of delegates that I set in my new slate?

Or is there no worries about this sort of slate manipulation?  If not, please explain why the above scenario is not feasible.



Title: Re: 100% burn+"filler" delegates and the "cutoff" delegate
Post by: arhag on January 27, 2015, 09:00:18 pm
I have no clue what I'm talking about, but from what little I know about how things work ... the "slate" appears to be very exploitable, no?

The creator of the slate can change it at any time, is that correct?

So if I create a slate and show publicly that it contains votes for a certain list of delegates that I know others will approve, I get a bunch of votes for my delegate (and my slate). 

Then I change the slate delegate list without notifying anyone else and .... what?  What could I do? I could (with enough votes) usher in a new set of delegates that I set in my new slate?

Or is there no worries about this sort of slate manipulation?  If not, please explain why the above scenario is not feasible.

Changing the slate does not cause the votes to automatically be updated. It still requires each user who is giving a thumbs up to that slate to update their votes (or transfer their balance to themselves). In theory, it should be possible for the client to warn the user if some of the slates that they gave a thumbs up to have been significantly changed and ask them to review it before updating the votes (although there is no plan that I know of to implement something like this). More importantly, however, is that all of this is transparent on the blockchain (although the client GUI really needs to build user-friendly tools to allow people to visualize the slates of the accounts they have given a thumbs up to for this transparency to be very meaningful), so if you were to try to pull off something manipulative, people would eventually detect it, stop trusting you, and no longer give your account the thumbs up.

Also, keep in mind that you do not have to use the "Vote as Delegates Recommend" method which is the voting option that pulls in this slate information. I prefer to use the "Vote All" method myself and manually choose the delegates.
Title: Re: 100% burn+"filler" delegates and the "cutoff" delegate
Post by: davidpbrown on January 27, 2015, 09:09:52 pm
What I'd like to see is a simple way to scroll through the 101 and contenders, in the GUI, and see there some statement of intent from them that I can get behind. Right now, even for those of us very engaged, it's too much to recall which of 101 delegates are worthy. If it's there in front of you, it's easy.

I liked the idea that delegates burn statements to the wall.. could we have a function in the GUI to scroll through the walls of delegates, with the vote for button right there and a simple exit that helps the user action the voting change?
Title: Re: 100% burn+"filler" delegates and the "cutoff" delegate
Post by: ozvic on January 28, 2015, 01:52:33 am
Payout % column for the Standby Delegates would be handy as well. Currently only shows for the active delegates.