BitShares Forum
Main => Stakeholder Proposals => Topic started by: Thom on July 28, 2015, 05:46:35 pm
-
This poll will decide where gentso's delegate pay (85% of a 100% delegate) will be redirected. I will retain my existing 15% fee to maintain the delegate node and supply 24 feeds, and handle any oversight of the chosen recipient(s) should the community decide later this redirection should be changed.
I want to stress this redirection is subject to change based on community input, though it will not be changed without a solid case being made here in the forum and well in advance. These funds will of course disappear should delegate.verbaltech be voted out of the 101.
I have tried to provide a wide range of poll options to choose between, including the last 2 open ended "write ins" which may need a different poll to sort through if lots of other options are suggested. Based on the response to this so far I don't think that will be necessary.
I have given this poll 3 days to finish, which will be on Thursday. Final discussion and decision will be made at the end of Friday's mumble and funds will start flowing immediately. I will set the payout period to be every 7 days.
It should also be emphasized that delegate.verbaltech was voted in based on it's business development / marketing value. Some of the poll choices do not represent that but may be worthy alternatives.
-
From what I see now it looks like the consensus is for burning all 85% of gentso's delegate pay.
If that holds true by tomorrow I will redirect that pay to the burn bucket.
What address constitutes a verifiable burn address? I tried to search for "burn" and "burn address" here in the forum but could not find such an address. What's the best way to accomplish burning funds now?
-
From what I see now it looks like the consensus is for burning all 85% of gentso's delegate pay.
If that holds true by tomorrow I will redirect that pay to the burn bucket.
What address constitutes a verifiable burn address? I tried to search for "burn" and "burn address" here in the forum but could not find such an address. What's the best way to accomplish burning funds now?
Your poll is not really fair... You have a whole bunch of options that say to distribute the funds, but only 1 option to destroy the funds. This is forcing the voters who would like to see them used for something to spread out their votes.
The more realistic poll results would be:
16- Distribute to a delegate to use for work
14-Burn
-
From what I see now it looks like the consensus is for burning all 85% of gentso's delegate pay.
If that holds true by tomorrow I will redirect that pay to the burn bucket.
What address constitutes a verifiable burn address? I tried to search for "burn" and "burn address" here in the forum but could not find such an address. What's the best way to accomplish burning funds now?
You don't burn by sending to an address. There's a burn command in the CLI:
wallet_burn <amount_to_burn> <asset_symbol> <from_account_name> <for_or_against> <to_account_name> [public_message] [anonymous]
Burns given amount to the given account. This will allow you to post message and +/- sentiment on someones account as a form of reputation.
-
From what I see now it looks like the consensus is for burning all 85% of gentso's delegate pay.
If that holds true by tomorrow I will redirect that pay to the burn bucket.
What address constitutes a verifiable burn address? I tried to search for "burn" and "burn address" here in the forum but could not find such an address. What's the best way to accomplish burning funds now?
If the final say is burn.. then you should be taking the delegate offline again and letting it get voted down. That is essentially what the poll is saying if you are to interpret that as such. Let the whole delegate go down just like tradebts.gulu in this case.
lil_lay890 also brought up a good point that the final 'consensus' if you want to call it that was in favor of putting the funds to work in some way. I agree with this position more so. The delegate was voted to work for bitshares, not burn... otherwise someone else is being denied the right to be voted in. Most people are not aware of what has happened to your delegate.
-
The majority of people want it to be distributed, so as long and the the total is more than burn you should consider picking the highest distribution option.
-
From what I see now it looks like the consensus is for burning all 85% of gentso's delegate pay.
If that holds true by tomorrow I will redirect that pay to the burn bucket.
What address constitutes a verifiable burn address? I tried to search for "burn" and "burn address" here in the forum but could not find such an address. What's the best way to accomplish burning funds now?
You don't burn by sending to an address. There's a burn command in the CLI:
wallet_burn <amount_to_burn> <asset_symbol> <from_account_name> <for_or_against> <to_account_name> [public_message] [anonymous]
Burns given amount to the given account. This will allow you to post message and +/- sentiment on someones account as a form of reputation.
Bummer. That means I can't simply replace gentso's address in the payroll config to burn his funds. Looks like I need to modify the payroll plugin in bts_tools in order to automate this burn process. That should be easy. Thanks PC for the info.
From what I see now it looks like the consensus is for burning all 85% of gentso's delegate pay.
If that holds true by tomorrow I will redirect that pay to the burn bucket.
What address constitutes a verifiable burn address? I tried to search for "burn" and "burn address" here in the forum but could not find such an address. What's the best way to accomplish burning funds now?
Your poll is not really fair... You have a hole bunch of options that say to distribute the funds, but only 1 option to destroy the funds. This is forcing the voters who would like to see them used for something to spread out their votes.
The more realistic poll results would be:
16- Distribute to a delegate to use for work
14-Burn
I respectfully but emphatically disagree lil_jay.
I provided many options, including the 2 last options where you can express exactly how you want the funds redirected (specify your desires in this thread).
I don't understand your proposal. You failed to say WHICH delegate should receive the funds (16- Distribute to a delegate to use for work), and that's the primary reason for this poll.
I think your objection is a moot point anyway, as it looks like the majority of those voting want the funds burned (15 out of 32 voting as of now) rather than redirected.
If these results stand at the end of the mumble, I will change the payroll plugin to burn gentso's portion.
-
I think arbitrarily burning funds is stupid. It only makes sense from a value perspective when everyone knows exactly what has been burned. There is no depreciation if we can't track exactly whats been burned. If your friend drops $1 down in the sewer, it doesn't make your $1 more valuable. In abstract theory, maybe, but in practice, it has no effect.
-
From what I see now it looks like the consensus is for burning all 85% of gentso's delegate pay.
If that holds true by tomorrow I will redirect that pay to the burn bucket.
What address constitutes a verifiable burn address? I tried to search for "burn" and "burn address" here in the forum but could not find such an address. What's the best way to accomplish burning funds now?
If the final say is burn.. then you should be taking the delegate offline again and letting it get voted down. That is essentially what the poll is saying if you are to interpret that as such. Let the whole delegate go down just like tradebts.gulu in this case.
lil_lay890 also brought up a good point that the final 'consensus' if you want to call it that was in favor of putting the funds to work in some way. I agree with this position more so. The delegate was voted to work for bitshares, not burn... otherwise someone else is being denied the right to be voted in. Most people are not aware of what has happened to your delegate.
I don't understand, as I just posted in my reply to PC & lil_jay.
I agree with you concerning the applied to some effort vs. burn, however the poll results show the majority of those voting are NOT voting to redirect but rather to burn. This seems to conflict with what you are saying.
As I said from the start, this entire concern goes away if delegate.verbaltech gets voted out. That is not my choice to make. I wish to operate a witness when 2.0 is released, should that be an option. To that end I will not terminate the delegate myself. I am only trying to make the best of a bad situation, and be respectful of the community at the same time.
I welcome all comments.
-
From what I see now it looks like the consensus is for burning all 85% of gentso's delegate pay.
If that holds true by tomorrow I will redirect that pay to the burn bucket.
What address constitutes a verifiable burn address? I tried to search for "burn" and "burn address" here in the forum but could not find such an address. What's the best way to accomplish burning funds now?
You don't burn by sending to an address. There's a burn command in the CLI:
wallet_burn <amount_to_burn> <asset_symbol> <from_account_name> <for_or_against> <to_account_name> [public_message] [anonymous]
Burns given amount to the given account. This will allow you to post message and +/- sentiment on someones account as a form of reputation.
Bummer. That means I can't simply replace gentso's address in the payroll config to burn his funds. Looks like I need to modify the payroll plugin in bts_tools in order to automate this burn process. That should be easy. Thanks PC for the info.
From what I see now it looks like the consensus is for burning all 85% of gentso's delegate pay.
If that holds true by tomorrow I will redirect that pay to the burn bucket.
What address constitutes a verifiable burn address? I tried to search for "burn" and "burn address" here in the forum but could not find such an address. What's the best way to accomplish burning funds now?
Your poll is not really fair... You have a hole bunch of options that say to distribute the funds, but only 1 option to destroy the funds. This is forcing the voters who would like to see them used for something to spread out their votes.
The more realistic poll results would be:
16- Distribute to a delegate to use for work
14-Burn
I respectfully but emphatically disagree lil_jay.
I provided many options, including the 2 last options where you can express exactly how you want the funds redirected (specify your desires in this thread).
I don't understand your proposal. You failed to say WHICH delegate should receive the funds (16- Distribute to a delegate to use for work), and that's the primary reason for this poll.
I think your objection is a moot point anyway, as it looks like the majority of those voting want the funds burned (15 out of 32 voting as of now) rather than redirected.
If these results stand at the end of the mumble, I will change the payroll plugin to burn gentso's portion.
Delegate should die then.. you provided every option in the poll except for that option. This is denying good delegates a position in the 101 who can do good for bitshares. The delegate was voted in to work, not to be burned. Maintaining the position is denying the votes that wanted a 100% delegate working for bitshares.
Majority consensus voted for the delegate to continue to provide support to bitshares in divided options. You have denied the consensus.
I will be removing all my votes and my slates from voting for this delegate today and urge you to post an update about the no longer functional delegate position you are maintaining in your delegate proposal/update thread.
-
The majority of people want it to be distributed, so as long and the the total is more than burn you should consider picking the highest distribution option.
But the majority of those voting don't want it distributed. 15 votes were cast to burn, the rest of the votes are scattered among the other options.
It's not the option I prefer, but that's just me. My vote carries no more weight than any other's. In fact I wouldn't have voted at all if I could see the poll results.
-
The majority of people want it to be distributed, so as long and the the total is more than burn you should consider picking the highest distribution option.
But the majority of those voting don't want it distributed. 15 votes were cast to burn, the rest of the votes are scattered among the other options.
It's not the option I prefer, but that's just me. My vote carries no more weight than any other's. In fact I wouldn't have voted at all if I could see the poll results.
17 votes for funds to be redirected to work
15 votes for burn
Consensus denied.. just going to burn anyways << message you are sending.
You must make a post to notify those that voted for you tat your delegate is no longer working for bitshares and they should remove their votes.
-
I think arbitrarily burning funds is stupid. It only makes sense from a value perspective when everyone knows exactly what has been burned. There is no depreciation if we can't track exactly whats been burned.
Burned BTS are visible in the blockchain, and the client should adjust the total share supply accordingly.
-
From what I see now it looks like the consensus is for burning all 85% of gentso's delegate pay.
If that holds true by tomorrow I will redirect that pay to the burn bucket.
What address constitutes a verifiable burn address? I tried to search for "burn" and "burn address" here in the forum but could not find such an address. What's the best way to accomplish burning funds now?
You don't burn by sending to an address. There's a burn command in the CLI:
wallet_burn <amount_to_burn> <asset_symbol> <from_account_name> <for_or_against> <to_account_name> [public_message] [anonymous]
Burns given amount to the given account. This will allow you to post message and +/- sentiment on someones account as a form of reputation.
Bummer. That means I can't simply replace gentso's address in the payroll config to burn his funds. Looks like I need to modify the payroll plugin in bts_tools in order to automate this burn process. That should be easy. Thanks PC for the info.
From what I see now it looks like the consensus is for burning all 85% of gentso's delegate pay.
If that holds true by tomorrow I will redirect that pay to the burn bucket.
What address constitutes a verifiable burn address? I tried to search for "burn" and "burn address" here in the forum but could not find such an address. What's the best way to accomplish burning funds now?
Your poll is not really fair... You have a hole bunch of options that say to distribute the funds, but only 1 option to destroy the funds. This is forcing the voters who would like to see them used for something to spread out their votes.
The more realistic poll results would be:
16- Distribute to a delegate to use for work
14-Burn
I respectfully but emphatically disagree lil_jay.
I provided many options, including the 2 last options where you can express exactly how you want the funds redirected (specify your desires in this thread).
I don't understand your proposal. You failed to say WHICH delegate should receive the funds (16- Distribute to a delegate to use for work), and that's the primary reason for this poll.
I think your objection is a moot point anyway, as it looks like the majority of those voting want the funds burned (15 out of 32 voting as of now) rather than redirected.
If these results stand at the end of the mumble, I will change the payroll plugin to burn gentso's portion.
Thom, A fair poll would read something like this:
[
A: Burn
B: Distribute to delegates/workers
If B garners the most votes then a separate poll will be created for distribution of funds
]
Right now all the people who want to distribute the funds need to pick 1 of several answers. While people who want to burn only have to chose 1 option. Therefore you are dividing the votes of distributers and concentrating those of burners. In order for the distributers to win, they would all have to agree upon a certain distribution right off the bat without any debate, which is very unlikely. Do you see what I mean now?
-
Delegate should die then.. you provided every option in the poll except for that option. This is denying good delegates a position in the 101 who can do good for bitshares. The delegate was voted in to work, not to be burned. Maintaining the position is denying the votes that wanted a 100% delegate working for bitshares.
Majority consensus voted for the delegate to continue to provide support to bitshares in divided options. You have denied the consensus.
I will be removing all my votes and my slates from voting for this delegate today and urge you to post an update about the no longer functional delegate position you are maintaining in your delegate proposal/update thread.
I have denied nothing. The delegate is still securing the network. That has value. You do what you will Jonathon. As a "threat" that is meaningless to me. If delegate.verbaltech is voted out so be it, no regrets. But I will not hasten it along. All I will do is find a place for the 85% based on this poll.
Also, please keep in mind I could have kept my mouth shut and not done any of this, so DSN's demand that I voluntarily kill the delegate would leave a gap in security, which from the start he said was his main concern. Sounds like that may not actually be your primary concern. You're just looking for an easy opportunity to gain yet another delegate. You're not the only one trying to survive a bad economy Jonathon.
-
Right now all the people who want to distribute the funds need to pick 1 of several answers. While people who want to burn only have to chose 1 option. Therefore you are dividing the votes of distributers and concentrating those of burners. In order for the distributers to win, they would all have to agree upon a certain distribution right off the bat without any debate, which is very unlikely. Do you see what I mean now?
I see lil_jay, I get your point. However, as I said I took that into account by providing 2 open ended options at the end of the poll. It would be impossible to come up with a poll that covered ALL possibilities, so those last two options provide a way to alter this distro in whatever way the voter wants. I am also not convinced of your premise that those who want a distro but not those I suggested would instead vote for burning. They have 3 choices:
1) Vote for one of the distro option in the poll
2) Don't vote all all
3) Post a different distro perference
None of those choices are a choice to burn. Yet, the majority of those voting did not choose one of those, but instead chose to burn.
So why has nobody made any other distribution suggestions? Even DSN's "suicide" position. I contend that is not a fair thing to ask me to do. THAT option is in the hands of ALL voters, not just the teeny tiny few participating in this poll.
To DSN & pheonike:
I understand your perspecive, and think pheonike's suggestion makes sense. I do not want to buck the community. I will not burn the funds unless that is CLEARLY what the most people want to do. These numbers are changing as we discuss this, yet the largest number voted to burn. If I base NOT to burn on the aggregate of the remainder, that still doesn't answer the question of WHERE or HOW to distribute the funds, and I don't find much of this discussion helping to resolve that.
Another point that seems to have been overlooked is that I AM NOTIFYING EVERYONE of what is going on with this delegate, in the proposal thread for delegate.verbaltech AS WELL AS these 2 other threads about redirecting the funds. What other notification do you expect, a full page Wall Street Journal ad? Give me a break! I'm acting with alot more disclosure than I've seen from many other delegates.
I would much prefer to distribute. Just give me a clear message as to where, or suggest another poll. Knocking my efforts without alternative suggestions is not constructive.
If the community cannot express what they want clearly then perhaps burning is best. C'mon, post your alternative suggestions and stop complaining already!
-
Right now all the people who want to distribute the funds need to pick 1 of several answers. While people who want to burn only have to chose 1 option. Therefore you are dividing the votes of distributers and concentrating those of burners. In order for the distributers to win, they would all have to agree upon a certain distribution right off the bat without any debate, which is very unlikely. Do you see what I mean now?
I see lil_jay, I get your point. However, as I said I took that into account by providing 2 open ended options at the end of the poll. It would be impossible to come up with a poll that covered ALL possibilities, so those last two options provide a way to alter this distro in whatever way the voter wants. So why has nobody made any other distribution suggestions? Even DSN's "suicide" position. I contend that is not a fair thing to ask me to do. THAT option is in the hands of ALL voters, not just the teeny tiny few participating in this poll.
The reason that no one picked "a different distribution" is because your other choices encompassed a more specific option that they desired.
The problem is you are trying to gain specific consensus through a single poll. Often several sets of questions need to be asked to learn a specific demographics desires. This is how survey websites work. There is not 1 question with a large set of responses, but a series of questions and polls that build off each other.
Here is what I think would be the correct Process:
1. Should we burn or distribute? A. Burn B. Distribute
if A: Burn --> Survey Ended and Burn
if B: Go to question 2
2. Who should receive the funds? A. Voted in Delegates B. Delegates not yet voted in C. Workers D. A combination of A, B, & C
if A: Ask question about which voted in delegates
if B: Ask question about which stand by delegates
if C: Ask question about what outside workers
if D: Ask question about which A, B, C Workers
3. Take answer from question 2 and give a more specific list of distribution
Answer --> This is how the funds should be distributed
This is the minimum amount of research that should be done for delegating how these funds should be spent.
-
I think arbitrarily burning funds is stupid. It only makes sense from a value perspective when everyone knows exactly what has been burned. There is no depreciation if we can't track exactly whats been burned.
Burned BTS are visible in the blockchain, and the client should adjust the total share supply accordingly.
Thanks for clarifying. If that's the case, burning can serve a purpose 8)
-
Right now all the people who want to distribute the funds need to pick 1 of several answers. While people who want to burn only have to chose 1 option. Therefore you are dividing the votes of distributers and concentrating those of burners. In order for the distributers to win, they would all have to agree upon a certain distribution right off the bat without any debate, which is very unlikely. Do you see what I mean now?
I see lil_jay, I get your point. However, as I said I took that into account by providing 2 open ended options at the end of the poll. It would be impossible to come up with a poll that covered ALL possibilities, so those last two options provide a way to alter this distro in whatever way the voter wants. So why has nobody made any other distribution suggestions? Even DSN's "suicide" position. I contend that is not a fair thing to ask me to do. THAT option is in the hands of ALL voters, not just the teeny tiny few participating in this poll.
The reason that no one picked "a different distribution" is because your other choices encompassed a more specific option that they desired.
The problem is you are trying to gain specific consensus through a single poll. Often several sets of questions need to be asked to learn a specific demographics desires. This is how survey websites work. There is not 1 question with a large set of responses, but a series of questions and polls that build off each other.
Here is what I think would be the correct Process:
1. Should we burn or distribute? A. Burn B. Distribute
if A: Burn --> Survey Ended and Burn
if B: Go to question 2
2. Who should receive the funds? A. Voted in Delegates B. Delegates not yet voted in C. Workers D. A combination of A, B, & C
if A: Ask question about which voted in delegates
if B: Ask question about which stand by delegates
if C: Ask question about what outside workers
if D: Ask question about which A, B, C Workers
3. Take answer from question 2 and give a more specific list of distribution
Answer --> This is how the funds should be distributed
This is the minimum amount of research that should be done for delegating how these funds should be spent.
Isn't your first statement obvious? Of course if there was a more appealing choice than "Some other distribution" they should choose that, and from what you are saying they did. Why is that unfair?
The detailed approach you provided here is very reasonable but a considerable amount of time and effort to oversee. I didn't expect this was going to be a difficult thing to figure out, but I stand corrected.
Those who agree with lil_jay and want to scrap this poll in favor of his process should voice that opinion here, along with how long they are willing to allow the process to complete and any other details they think are relevant.
-
Delegate should die then.. you provided every option in the poll except for that option. This is denying good delegates a position in the 101 who can do good for bitshares. The delegate was voted in to work, not to be burned. Maintaining the position is denying the votes that wanted a 100% delegate working for bitshares.
Majority consensus voted for the delegate to continue to provide support to bitshares in divided options. You have denied the consensus.
I will be removing all my votes and my slates from voting for this delegate today and urge you to post an update about the no longer functional delegate position you are maintaining in your delegate proposal/update thread.
I have denied nothing. The delegate is still securing the network. That has value. You do what you will Jonathon. As a "threat" that is meaningless to me. If delegate.verbaltech is voted out so be it, no regrets. But I will not hasten it along. All I will do is find a place for the 85% based on this poll.
Also, please keep in mind I could have kept my mouth shut and not done any of this, so DSN's demand that I voluntarily kill the delegate would leave a gap in security, which from the start he said was his main concern. Sounds like that may not actually be your primary concern. You're just looking for an easy opportunity to gain yet another delegate. You're not the only one trying to survive a bad economy Jonathon.
Was any due diligence done by contacting everyone in the original proposition thread to let them know of this poll?
Speaking of motives.. you have stated your's plainly above now. which is to entrench yourself in a delegate YOU were not voted for. Your inference of my motives is both wrong and insulting. Being on the wrong side of consensus though, pot shots are expected.
Given your denial of the consensus which funny enough is changing as this thread continues, the only reasonable course of action now is to vote out the delegate and give proper notice of it's removal.
As for lil_jays insights into the ineffectiveness of this entire exercise as it was executed, It would take ample amounts of time to eventually arrive at an answer, by which time a substantial amount of BTS will have been accumulated.
It would only be agreeable at this stage to me to take the delegate offline so everyone knows it is no longer functional.. allow them to seek out and find the poll process.. give them a chance to either vote in the poll or vote it out if that is what they want.. and then once the consensus is reached.. then bring the delegate back online if its still in the 101. This gives other delegates that people may want to vote for an opportunity to be voted for instead of being displaced by a lame position the way this and at least one other is.
Bottom line though is the way the system is .. the choice is yours what action to take that is in the best interest of the voters. I would submit that my proposition is.
If the burn is going to persist.. then take that 15% of what you want out.. burn the rest.. and take the delegate offline so it doesn't produce another block and let it get voted out like john-galt.
-
I believe this delegate should do whatever it's voted on in the pool while it's voted down. I think a delegate that is not performing it's original task and doesn't have the original purpose should be voted on so chances are given to others. People who voted this delegate in, did so because of the original objectives and tasks the delegate committed himself to do. Since that's not the case it should be voted down imo, that's the fair option. Otherwise it's occupying a spot doing something that the original voters didn't intend him to do.
-
Please remember that this forum is not authoritative wrt delegates. The shareholders are.
Gentso's delegate was voted in because of his proposal. If the proposal can't be fulfilled anymore, a responsible delegate should announce that fact, ask shareholders to be voted out, and burn the earnings (possibly after deducting a reasonable fee to cover the delegate's maintenance cost). IMO we're at this point right now, and the only reason why the delegate is still in is that most of the shareholders haven't noticed the new situation yet.
Casting a forum poll on how to spend the funds *differently from the original proposal* is a violation of the original proposal, and can therefore be seen as betrayal.
-
If burn 85% is choosen that would end up being quite an expensive "witness only delegate"....
-
Please remember that this forum is not authoritative wrt delegates. The shareholders are.
Gentso's delegate was voted in because of his proposal. If the proposal can't be fulfilled anymore, a responsible delegate should announce that fact, ask shareholders to be voted out, and burn the earnings (possibly after deducting a reasonable fee to cover the delegate's maintenance cost). IMO we're at this point right now, and the only reason why the delegate is still in is that most of the shareholders haven't noticed the new situation yet.
Casting a forum poll on how to spend the funds *differently from the original proposal* is a violation of the original proposal, and can therefore be seen as betrayal.
+5%
-
Please remember that this forum is not authoritative wrt delegates. The shareholders are.
Gentso's delegate was voted in because of his proposal. If the proposal can't be fulfilled anymore, a responsible delegate should announce that fact, ask shareholders to be voted out, and burn the earnings (possibly after deducting a reasonable fee to cover the delegate's maintenance cost). IMO we're at this point right now, and the only reason why the delegate is still in is that most of the shareholders haven't noticed the new situation yet.
Casting a forum poll on how to spend the funds *differently from the original proposal* is a violation of the original proposal, and can therefore be seen as betrayal.
What you are referring to would be closer to a worker proposal from 2.0.
The intention with delegates in the current iteration is to vote someone in to bring value to Bitshares with no definitive time frame of when to be voted out. An initial project is usually used as a foot in the door so to speak, but it was talked about very early on how once a delegate completed their job they could propose new ideas to bring value and keep there position. They could also lower their pay rate.
I think what verbal tech is doing is providing new ways to bring value to bts. And you may not like forum voting, but right now that is all we have.
-
There's a lot of strong words being used in this thread, and it really disturbs me. I don't believe it's called for at all. However, I have to pause here and apologize for my own poor choice of words too. I am far too quick to become defensive, especially when I'm trying to be completely open.
I don't disagree with pc's comments (except for his statement regarding betrayal that is), however what he suggests has not been done with other delegates who have been in similar positions. Toast left without much of an announcement, as did methodx to name two. Zero public discussion of where their delegate funds went until long after they were gone. I saw nowhere near the discontent expressed towards their choice to redistribute as they saw fit. They didn't even make an attempt to ask the community for input or even disclose they were no longer fulfilling their delegate proposal. So why am I being held to such scrutiny, why the double standard? The record (in this forum) speaks for itself. I've been completely transparent on this matter, more so than other delegates in the past.
I may have to devote a chapter in The BItShares Saga about DPoS' shortcomings in an immature crypto project based on this and other (defunct) delegates. Perhaps this is why Gentso decided to walk away without so much as a word, seeing how inconsistently this community reacts.
It remains to be seen IMO if the consensus aspects of DPoS will succeed or become a process (like this thread) of political / good old boy / insider / cliche / special interests that don't represent the community. DPoS may well work to secure block production, but the jury is still out on it's viability to ascertain the actual desires of the community and self govern in an open and transparent manor. It clearly is a better design in that regard than most other cryptos, including bitcoin. We can however see it's weaknesses, which are highlighted in this bear market. Without incentives, there is little to quell voter apathy. The DPoS process is far from proven and mature. We'll see when 2.0 comes how much more needs to be done. The splitting of delegate roles is a step in the right direction. I don't believe the consensus building / determining characteristics of DPoS have gotten the attention they require to achieve a robust and solid process of governance for the project that truly represents the will of the community.
I can see the possibility that workers & witnesses could evolve similarly to how bitcoin mining evolved, getting more and more centralized as the size of the ecosystem grows to make it far less viable for individuals to maintain nodes. As the launch approaches for 2.0 we'll see what type of consensus emerges concerning the number of witnesses, the requirements they must meet, as well as workers and the standards they will be held to, and how accountable they will be to their proposals. My concerns for delegates in 2.0 stem from the fact their roles are purely political, and I'm always suspect about the motives of politicians.
If anyone cares to look they will see that I sounded the alarm early, and indeed it was done in the original proposal thread (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,13837.msg225901.html#msg225901). Now don't let me confuse you with facts, especially if someone else is telling you what you want to hear. Repeating claims don't make them true, but unfortunately that tactic still works all to well. Saying that I'm denying consensus when this entire thread is an attempt ascertain it, albeit in a simple and flawed manor, disregards the effort. It reminds me of how newmine provides lots of criticism but rarely offers any solutions or better alternatives. PC stated the obvious - that the official consensus is voting. This thread / poll is only a stopgap measure, and it is proving to be a flawed approach.
I'm not making any allegations, but it is a fair question to ask what happened to the funds between the time Toast and MethodX chose to disengage and therefore break from their delegate proposal to the time they actually redirected their delegate funds elsewhere. I don't believe there were any nefarious things going on with those guys, but the point is their transition was not "well publicized" or handled in a transparent manor. Yet their feet weren't held to the fire like mine seem to be here. I'll grant you the circumstances are quite different despite the commonality of redirecting delegate funds. I would be the last to deny that toast didn't earn every last BTS (and then some) he has. My respect for methodx may not be quite as high as it is for toast but I believe he too earned his BTS. These are only 2 of several other delegates that have abandoned their delegate roles, there are others we haven't even mentioned.
Allegations that no notification was given or was somehow inadequate are unfounded. Since that allegation was made by someone that responded in that thread to my initial announcement, there is no excuse for bringing it up here as a question. It is therefore biased and inflammatory.
And thanks lil_jay for your last post. Good to know some in the community think positively.
-
For what it's worth, I think Thom is handling this situation very well.
He has paid the fee for a delegate slot and with it comes the Natural Right to propose changes to how that delegate slot should be used with or without community input. He has chosen to ask for advice from the community. Nothing wrong with that.
Once he decides what he wants to propose, then it is the shareholder's turn to vote on whether they still support him.
Situations like this are bound to come up from time to time. (Sooner or later every worker will face a similar decision.)
Thom's approach seems as reasonable as any I can think of.
The only thing I might add to the Worker Change Request Process would be that there be a time period (maybe two weeks?) for voters to react to the change proposal during which worker pay is held without being spent on anything. If the new proposal is voted out, then those fees should be burned - which is the same as retroactively turning off payment at the time of the proposed change. If the delegate remains elected, then the pay collected during the interim may be applied to the new purpose.
I would also expect that, if a worker gets voted out, it is their natural right to improve their proposal in an attempt to get their expensive worker slot re-elected. Those who haven't been voted out should have no less flexibility to adapt in an attempt to stay elected.
-
For what it's worth, I think Thom is handling this situation very well.
He has paid the fee for a delegate slot and with it comes the Natural Right to propose changes to how that delegate slot should be used with or without community input. He has chosen to ask for advice from the community. Nothing wrong with that.
Once he decides what he wants to propose, then it is the shareholder's turn to vote on whether they still support him.
Situations like this are bound to come up from time to time. (Sooner or later every worker will face a similar decision.)
Thom's approach seems as reasonable as any I can think of.
The only thing I might add to the Worker Change Request Process would be that there be a time period (maybe two weeks?) for voters to react to the change proposal during which worker pay is held without being spent on anything. If the new proposal is voted out, then those fees should be burned - which is the same as retroactively turning off payment at the time of the proposed change. If the delegate remains elected, then the pay collected during the interim may be applied to the new purpose.
I would also expect that, if a worker gets voted out, it is their natural right to improve their proposal in an attempt to get their expensive worker slot re-elected. Those who haven't been voted out should have no less flexibility to adapt in an attempt to stay elected.
Thom, I admire you for taking the hard road and asking for community consensus before allocating delegate funds. Not even a core developer (toast at one point) was able to do that. And I agree completely with how several underperforming delegates have distributed funds without any input from the community.
I do think that this whole situation has become another case of misinterpretation... Text in forums doesn't work well to convey thoughts and opinions.
-
Thanks Stan & lil_jay for your kind words of support and understanding.
I will think about the purpose of delegate.verbaltech moving forward as Stan suggested, and put together another proposal to put before the shareholders. About all I can promise is it won't be another "business development" role. It might possibly be considered marketing, if I incorporate my efforts in writing The BitShares Saga. Many of you have seen the quality of my writing from the first preview, which is being reworked into the 5 part book series I call The BitShares Saga. The effort will be far more comprehensive than originally planned and cover much more material than Max's BitShares 101 book did (although that was a very good effort IMO).
My primary contribution to verbaltech has been technical, tho I did provide considerable info to gentso concerning precious metals. I seriously doubt my proposal will be for a 100% delegate. If I can justify my 15% delegate pay to stay elected as a "witness" in this 0.9.2 era I'll be satisfied. What I do bring to the table in technical skills is extensive and much more than many other delegates. Besides that however I am very committed to complete The BitShares Saga, once I get past all of these unexpected emergencies and get my life and focus back on track.
I have told a few of you about a life threatening incident I had early last week that landed me in the hospital for a few days. I am still recovering from that and will be for quite awhile. I'm too young to be having these issues!
-
There's a lot of strong words being used in this thread, and it really disturbs me. I don't believe it's called for at all. However, I have to pause here and apologize for my own poor choice of words too. I am far too quick to become defensive, especially when I'm trying to be completely open.
I don't disagree with pc's comments (except for his statement regarding betrayal that is), however what he suggests has not been done with other delegates who have been in similar positions. Toast left without much of an announcement, as did methodx to name two. Zero public discussion of where their delegate funds went until long after they were gone. I saw nowhere near the discontent expressed towards their choice to redistribute as they saw fit. They didn't even make an attempt to ask the community for input or even disclose they were no longer fulfilling their delegate proposal. So why am I being held to such scrutiny, why the double standard? The record (in this forum) speaks for itself. I've been completely transparent on this matter, more so than other delegates in the past.
I may have to devote a chapter in The BItShares Saga about DPoS' shortcomings in an immature crypto project based on this and other (defunct) delegates. Perhaps this is why Gentso decided to walk away without so much as a word, seeing how inconsistently this community reacts.
It remains to be seen IMO if the consensus aspects of DPoS will succeed or become a process (like this thread) of political / good old boy / insider / cliche / special interests that don't represent the community. DPoS may well work to secure block production, but the jury is still out on it's viability to ascertain the actual desires of the community and self govern in an open and transparent manor. It clearly is a better design in that regard than most other cryptos, including bitcoin. We can however see it's weaknesses, which are highlighted in this bear market. Without incentives, there is little to quell voter apathy. The DPoS process is far from proven and mature. We'll see when 2.0 comes how much more needs to be done. The splitting of delegate roles is a step in the right direction. I don't believe the consensus building / determining characteristics of DPoS have gotten the attention they require to achieve a robust and solid process of governance for the project that truly represents the will of the community.
I can see the possibility that workers & witnesses could evolve similarly to how bitcoin mining evolved, getting more and more centralized as the size of the ecosystem grows to make it far less viable for individuals to maintain nodes. As the launch approaches for 2.0 we'll see what type of consensus emerges concerning the number of witnesses, the requirements they must meet, as well as workers and the standards they will be held to, and how accountable they will be to their proposals. My concerns for delegates in 2.0 stem from the fact their roles are purely political, and I'm always suspect about the motives of politicians.
If anyone cares to look they will see that I sounded the alarm early, and indeed it was done in the original proposal thread (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,13837.msg225901.html#msg225901). Now don't let me confuse you with facts, especially if someone else is telling you what you want to hear. Repeating claims don't make them true, but unfortunately that tactic still works all to well. Saying that I'm denying consensus when this entire thread is an attempt ascertain it, albeit in a simple and flawed manor, disregards the effort. It reminds me of how newmine provides lots of criticism but rarely offers any solutions or better alternatives. PC stated the obvious - that the official consensus is voting. This thread / poll is only a stopgap measure, and it is proving to be a flawed approach.
I'm not making any allegations, but it is a fair question to ask what happened to the funds between the time Toast and MethodX chose to disengage and therefore break from their delegate proposal to the time they actually redirected their delegate funds elsewhere. I don't believe there were any nefarious things going on with those guys, but the point is their transition was not "well publicized" or handled in a transparent manor. Yet their feet weren't held to the fire like mine seem to be here. I'll grant you the circumstances are quite different despite the commonality of redirecting delegate funds. I would be the last to deny that toast didn't earn every last BTS (and then some) he has. My respect for methodx may not be quite as high as it is for toast but I believe he too earned his BTS. These are only 2 of several other delegates that have abandoned their delegate roles, there are others we haven't even mentioned.
Allegations that no notification was given or was somehow inadequate are unfounded. Since that allegation was made by someone that responded in that thread to my initial announcement, there is no excuse for bringing it up here as a question. It is therefore biased and inflammatory.
And thanks lil_jay for your last post. Good to know some in the community think positively.
Your apology is disingenuous after that sanctimonious passive aggressive dig on me and thanks to everyone else. Passive aggressive pot shots, are still pot shots. Grow up.
You are not a victim of a double standard or politico world as dramatic as it sounds.
You actually were starting out doing the right thing.
You are not in the same position as methodx or toast. They were the ones voted to carry out their delegates, so it was in their discretion to decide how to handle the funds they were entrusted with. Both of them were questioned numerous times in the past about it, and there was always an answer that the funds had be redirected to some other worthy/needed cause that they saw fit albeit this was not very effectively communicated. Whether you want to accept that answer or not is your call. Only a few days ago I questioned one of toasts 100% delegates that had not been updated since January.
You on the other hand are just the host maintainer. You got your hands on the private keys, and thats all. You are operating with diminished authority, other than the agreement you had with Genso, which now appears null and void.
You weren't given permission by him to continue to operate this delegate were you?
You are not carrying out the delegates purpose as a 100% delegate are you?
So you started out doing the right thing and said hey community, we got this delegate that is voted in but the one that it was meant for is gone.. I really have no business here continuing.. what say you? You gave numerous options, 11 to put the the delegate to some other work the same way others have done, and 1 to burn it.
At the time there were 17 votes to do something with the funds, and 15 to burn (at present its 21/20). You take that as some kind of answer which we have already established is flawed. Yes, you were shown that consensus was for the other route, and denied it/disagreed. Only later did you begin to acknowledge the flaw in the process taken. It's not a newmine trick as you seem to like to imply I reminded you of; it's the way it was.
I couldn't find any links to this poll in the original delegate proposal. So voters who were following the thread at least never got notice of whats going on here. Due Diligence of notice in my estimation would have been to go through the thread and make a list of every single person that said they voted and PM them. That's about the best you can do now.
Consider this some great content fodder for your book like you said.
I don't care for this personal bull you seem to want to throw at me.. so I ask you to stop focusing on me.. and deal with this.
Take decisive action and let the voters know.
-
What I would propose to improve the network is for @bytemaster to remove his votes (and the tens of millions under his control) for all delegates besides the core developer delegates he knows are working on bitshares 2.0. The leg-up that his ~ 170 million votes has created for those that got it has made those delegates untouchable, they virtually can't be voted out by the other shareholders, this has in turn made many of them less transparent, and in some cases possibly even less productive than had they been battling to stay in the top 101.
Under DPOS 2.0 most of these issues go away... no marketing delegates will be voted in, and only a few workers will be hired...
...
If there is a 100% delegate that is getting paid for nothing then let me know and I will remove my votes from them.
-
If burn 85% is choosen that would end up being quite an expensive "witness only delegate"....
I agree. if my maths correct that's 19237 bts per month. I'm not opposed to you continuing to run the delegate. I think having as many individuals running nodes heading into 2.0 is a good thing. if we're gonna be purist and call support of 38btswarrior charity, I think we need to do the same for 15% delegates that do the same job as the 3% ones.
-
@DSN: Yet more accusations. Disingenuous? There's a good example of the phrase, "the pot calling the kettle black". Like your motives aren't transparent as can be to get an unprecedented number of delegates under your personal control, like your disingenuous "offer" to host delegate.verbaltech, if only I would give you the keys you'd have it up and running right away.
You seem to take joy in bringing up the most nit-picky issues in this thread, like how I was so derelict in my duties for not linking to this poll in the original announcement thread. Big fucking deal! Like that really matters. It's in the same board with gentso in the subject. If someone was the least bit interested in keeping informed they will find the relevant info. Just stop already, you're not helping.
-
@DSN: Yet more accusations. Disingenuous? There's a good example of the phrase, "the pot calling the kettle black". Like your motives aren't transparent as can be to get an unprecedented number of delegates under your personal control, like your disingenuous "offer" to host delegate.verbaltech, if only I would give you the keys you'd have it up and running right away.
You seem to take joy in bringing up the most nit-picky issues in this thread, like how I was so derelict in my duties for not linking to this poll in the original announcement thread. Big fucking deal! Like that really matters. It's in the same board with gentso in the subject. If someone was the least bit interested in keeping informed they will find the relevant info. Just stop already, you're not helping.
Grow... up.
-
Kudos to Thom for being up-front about this and giving the community a choice. I would say it's less about re-directing funds, though, and more about you finding a new delegate partner. If this is purely a short-term arrangement, then I'm not opposed to one of your suggestions for re-directing funds, but if this continues beyond 2.0, then time to re-start the delegate.
By process of elimination, I would eliminate DataSecurityNode from consideration. He does a lot of good things and may well be deserving, but from the comments, you guys don't get along. No sense running such a partnership together with Thom, even for a short period of time.
I say burn it or give it to 30PTSW.
-
Kudos to Thom for being up-front about this and giving the community a choice. I would say it's less about re-directing funds, though, and more about you finding a new delegate partner. If this is purely a short-term arrangement, then I'm not opposed to one of your suggestions for re-directing funds, but if this continues beyond 2.0, then time to re-start the delegate.
By process of elimination, I would eliminate DataSecurityNode from consideration. He does a lot of good things and may well be deserving, but from the comments, you guys don't get along. No sense running such a partnership together with Thom, even for a short period of time.
I say burn it or give it to 30PTSW.
+5%
Hodor
(http://photos.vanityfair.com/2015/06/08/5574f03d320a56cf4240adf5_stannis-burns-shireen-game-of-thrones.jpg)
-
Looks like the majority of people chose to redistribute 26-22 and of those the "10% to 38PTSWarior, 21% to bitsharesbreakout, 18% to btstools.digitalgaia, 18% to fav, 18% to Bunkermining" seems to be the majority choice.
-
Looks like the majority of the very small minority of the bitshares community that actually voted in this thread chose to redistribute 26-22 and of those the "10% to 38PTSWarior, 21% to bitsharesbreakout, 18% to btstools.digitalgaia, 18% to fav, 18% to Bunkermining" seems to be the majority choice.
Slight correction.
Let's not forget about incentives and which votes may carry greater gain for the individual voters themselves vs gain for bitshares as a whole.
Let's also not forget that there is no way (other than maybe mods or admin using IP, and we know nobody is this community would have access to multiple rigs using different IP's) to determine which votes may have been made with alternate or multiple user accounts.
Example: I have voted in this thread, but only with 1 account and not with this one ;D
I chose to burn because I see value in keeping constructively critical members like Thom running a delegate.
With that said, I do believe 38PTSWarrior, bitsharesbreakout, digitalgaia and fav to all be more than worthy and deserving of a delegate spot :)
-
Looks like the majority of people chose to redistribute 26-22 and of those the "10% to 38PTSWarior, 21% to bitsharesbreakout, 18% to btstools.digitalgaia, 18% to fav, 18% to Bunkermining" seems to be the majority choice.
Thanks to everybody for your contributions. I concur with Pheonike, that the majority have voted to redistribute, tho scattered among many options as to how it should be done. I also agree that burning those funds would be a waste. Although it would benefit the entire ecosystem as a deflationary measure, that was obviously not the intention of those who originally voted for delegate.verbaltech.
I think Stan's input was the most constructive. I will draft a new proposal for this delegate over the weekend and post it for all to review and comment on. If the community likes it I will act accordingly, otherwise I'll leave it up to the community to terminate the delegate by voting it out.
As always, I'll keep you informed.
-
Kudos to Thom for being up-front about this and giving the community a choice. I would say it's less about re-directing funds, though, and more about you finding a new delegate partner. If this is purely a short-term arrangement, then I'm not opposed to one of your suggestions for re-directing funds, but if this continues beyond 2.0, then time to re-start the delegate.
By process of elimination, I would eliminate DataSecurityNode from consideration. He does a lot of good things and may well be deserving, but from the comments, you guys don't get along. No sense running such a partnership together with Thom, even for a short period of time.
I say burn it or give it to 30PTSW.
Haha.. Thom and I have no problem getting along.
He just chose to start hurling unfounded emotional accusations at me when I started to say that the delegate should be allowed to die if the consensus that was voted on was not going to be followed. You can track back and see that.
He went on the defensive because of all the options, that is not the one he wants to happen.. he wants to keep that 15% at least as he stated (tough times as he said). I got no problem with that, and I already said he started by doing the right thing, its a matter of doing right by voters here and I just think more can be done. Trying to turn off Thoms accusations mode though is like trying to stop verbal diarrhea.
To expand on your suggestion to partner up though, I had thought about the same thing. I think an ideal fit would be (if wackou agrees) to have Thom work with wackou on bts_tools seeing as Thom says he is a software developer. Wackou keeps getting bumped out of the 101 with his 30% delegate. If there is any 100% delegate that is an ideal fit that will move into a witness/worker in 2.0 it's wackous delegate for bts_tools and his anti-DDOS delegate network.
I think his delegate could do MUCH better with 85% to work with. I have had discussions with him regarding the anti-ddos network plan he has for delegates and it requires numerous network nodes. That extra 55% delegate pay would be enough even in this market cap to establish enough nodes for a starting network.
Thom would be happy to dive into doing something he enjoys, software developing.
Wackous delegate is next in line to be voted in, so this would also be in line with social consensus based on votes.
So if a new proposal is going to be brought forth, THIS is the one I would vote for.
It makes the most sense, and serves the voters best and enriches the BitShares network.
This of course is contingent on wackou agreeing to work with Thom. If this happens, I will gladly reinstate my votes for this delegate.
If there is another poll or some like in the future making, please do consider this to be an option.
I also ask to put personal bullshit aside and consider putting BitShares first in such a decision. ie. don't throw out the solution just because it came from me and would have to say 'thanks DSN' :) ... We are on the same side here.
-
cryptosmith set to maintenance mode
-
Glad you were able to secure Cryptosmith jsidhu. Do you have control of the domain name & hosting account or did gentso not share that with you?
If you don't it might be a good idea to take a snapshot / backup of the site in case gentso decides to shutdown that site also.
As for the suggestion about delegate partnerships, I'm very open to that. Thanks for the suggestion donkeypong!
I actually really like DSN's suggestion to partner with Wackou. I'll touch base with Wackou and see if he is open to that and explore possibilities.
-
Gentso's delegate was voted in because of his proposal. If the proposal can't be fulfilled anymore, a responsible delegate should announce that fact, ask shareholders to be voted out, and burn the earnings
Casting a forum poll on how to spend the funds *differently from the original proposal* is a violation of the original proposal, and can therefore be seen as betrayal.
To clarify what I mean here:
Once a delegate has been voted in and is earning money, it is in his own responsibility to use the funds in a way that is compatible with his original proposal. Note that unspecific proposals may allow for a wide range of interpretations. I'd speak of betrayal only when the actual use of the funds is *clearly* not compatible with the proposal.
So do whatever *you* have a clear conscience with.
-
Looks like the majority of people chose to redistribute 26-22 and of those the "10% to 38PTSWarior, 21% to bitsharesbreakout, 18% to btstools.digitalgaia, 18% to fav, 18% to Bunkermining" seems to be the majority choice.
Wow. Have you ever thought about a job in politics? Calling 6 out of 48 (at this time) a majority is a level of bullshit that I haven't even heard from politicians after they lost an election.
-
Here's another suggestion for interpreting the votes:
Fortunately you put precise numbers on the choices. That makes it possible to compute relations.
Ignoring the two bottom choices with 0 votes you have 10 options for distributing 85% of the funds each.
"Burn all" received 22/48 votes, so you'll burn 22/48 * 85% of the funds.
"30% to btstools.digitalgaia and 55% to Bunkermining" received 4 votes, so you'll give 4/48 * 30% to digitalgaia and 4/48 * 55% to DSN.
"All to Bunkermining" received 3 votes, so you'll give another 3/48 * 85% to DSN.
And so on.
-
I voted option 9
-
Here's another suggestion for interpreting the votes:
Fortunately you put precise numbers on the choices. That makes it possible to compute relations.
Ignoring the two bottom choices with 0 votes you have 10 options for distributing 85% of the funds each.
"Burn all" received 22/48 votes, so you'll burn 22/48 * 85% of the funds.
"30% to btstools.digitalgaia and 55% to Bunkermining" received 4 votes, so you'll give 4/48 * 30% to digitalgaia and 4/48 * 55% to DSN.
"All to Bunkermining" received 3 votes, so you'll give another 3/48 * 85% to DSN.
And so on.
That's an interesting way to calculate. It distributes based on the results. Another way it could be done.. and be a living result.. as long as people can change their votes in the poll. Assumes we don't have troll/socket puppets influencing it.. but it would hold true to consensus with that kind of breakdown. Going to be more work for Thom, but only requires once a month / bi-weekly maintenance.
I stil prefer my previous solution of Thom working with wackou at this point though.
-
Looks like the majority of people chose to redistribute 26-22 and of those the "10% to 38PTSWarior, 21% to bitsharesbreakout, 18% to btstools.digitalgaia, 18% to fav, 18% to Bunkermining" seems to be the majority choice.
Wow. Have you ever thought about a job in politics? Calling 6 out of 48 (at this time) a majority is a level of bullshit that I haven't even heard from politicians after they lost an election.
This is the very perspective I had when I was accused of going against consensus. The only consensus I saw was to burn, based solely on the magnitude of numbers in any one particular choice. Isn't it interesting how people draw such different conclusions about these poll results?
I do see the other point of view now tho, that if you sum the votes in all of the other categories they outnumber the burn category. But like you PC, I don't consider that a consensus.
I sent a message to wackou about the potential of a partnership. I may not hear back from him until Monday. Although such a partnership is not aligned with the original proposal for verbaltech, I do think it makes good sense. If he is open to the idea it becomes a matter of how much of the 85% would be directed his way or anywhere else. Given the marketcap right now it may be best to concentrate the funds on one effort. I'm not locked into any course of action at the moment. Let's see what wackou has to say about it.
As for the need to stick with the original purpose, I don't think that's necessary at this juncture, nor was it a consideration for any of the other delegates that redirected their pay. For purists it might be objectionable, but this is not a community of purists by my observation. If the forthcoming revised proposal for verbaltech is unacceptable in any way the shareholders can vote me out. Look at this entire exercise as my attempt to allow the community to influence that proposal before I revise it. The shareholders can veto it at any time.
I think it's also important to realize all of the existing delegates including verbaltech will be re-evaluated when 2.0 arrives, so this redirection is only temporary. With the marketcap going to all time lows it doesn't amount to much expense until that happens.
-
I did hear back from wackou this morning and we are both very enthusiastic about a partnership!
He is traveling and his Internet connectivity is minimal for the next week or so, but I will be posting a separate thread to outline our new joint proposal for our combined delegate efforts.
I feel strongly about the possibilities for this new alliance and the value it will bring to the BItShares ecosystem. I will be releasing all of gentso's funds I have held to wackou and will be updating the delegate payroll to reflect this partnership. I will be more specific in the forthcoming proposal.
I was able to purchase 2 VPS accounts and completed the required setup to move delegate.verbaltech onto one of them late last night, however there is an issue with ntp I need to resolve before putting verbaltech online on that vps. In testing with test.verbaltech the 1.6 second time offset was causing other peer nodes to reject the blocks, according to the error message. I didn't have time to work it out but will be looking into it later today.
That vps is a 3GB RAM, 3 CPU core, OpenVZ architecture system, which is not the best architecture for this type of application. The other VPS is KVM but with only 2GB, 2 CPU core, so it may be better suited as a delegate host. I was actually very impressed with the performance of the OpenVZ vps and it synchronized much faster than I expected. Due to the time delta I took the node offline until I can resolve the clock issue, which is mainly a matter of submitting a ticket to the hosting provider to resolve. The OpenVZ vps is located in Germany and the other in the USA. I wanted them both in Europe but the provider ran out of available resources in Germany so I had to go with LA. These VPSs were purchased more for graphene testing than for delegate.verbaltech, so delegate.verbaltech will probably be moved several times before it finds an optimal, cost effective and reliable home.
I just wanted to tie a nice little bow on this thread and say stay tuned for further developments in another thread coming soon where I will describe our efforts in detail.
Thanks for the suggestion of this partnership and to everyone for participating in this discussion.
-
I did hear back from wackou this morning and we are both very enthusiastic about a partnership!
He is traveling and his Internet connectivity is minimal for the next week or so, but I will be posting a separate thread to outline our new joint proposal for our combined delegate efforts.
I feel strongly about the possibilities for this new alliance and the value it will bring to the BItShares ecosystem. I will be releasing all of gentso's funds I have held to wackou and will be updating the delegate payroll to reflect this partnership. I will be more specific in the forthcoming proposal.
I was able to purchase 2 VPS accounts and completed the required setup to move delegate.verbaltech onto one of them late last night, however there is an issue with ntp I need to resolve before putting verbaltech online on that vps. In testing with test.verbaltech the 1.6 second time offset was causing other peer nodes to reject the blocks, according to the error message. I didn't have time to work it out but will be looking into it later today.
That vps is a 3GB RAM, 3 CPU core, OpenVZ architecture system, which is not the best architecture for this type of application. The other VPS is KVM but with only 2GB, 2 CPU core, so it may be better suited as a delegate host. I was actually very impressed with the performance of the OpenVZ vps and it synchronized much faster than I expected. Due to the time difference I took the node offline until I can resolve the clock issue, which is mainly a matter of submitting a ticket to the hosting provider to resolve.
I just wanted to tie a nice little bow on this thread and say stay tuned for further developments in another thread coming soon where I will describe our efforts in detail.
Thanks for the suggestion of this partnership and to everyone for participating in this discussion.
You need more RAM.. if you want your delegate to run smooth it should have 4GB.. 2 cores is fine.. 4 cores come in handy when you need to rescan for whatever reason.
Also.. do not use OpenVZ for a delegate.. if a VM is going to be used only VM tech that would be acceptable is Xen, KVM, or VMware. If you use OpenVZ you are going to get shutdown again for over use and/or have so much contention you will miss blocks.
Your NTP issues are likely related to this.
Do NOT use swap or you are going to cause too much IO.
I am glad wackou is onboard.. I am looking forward to the new proposal announcement.