BitShares Forum
Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: bitcrab on January 08, 2016, 05:06:18 am
-
(http://i4.tietuku.com/04f10f6f30e4f8a0.png)
-
That doesn't seem like a good idea to me. I hope people pull thier BTS off of any exchanges that vote with BTS they don't really own.
-
It's a good signal imo.
People deposit to exchanges means that they agree the exchanges to vote as their proxy. No difference to set a proxy from the client.
-
+5% +5% +5% +5%
-
That doesn't seem like a good idea to me. I hope people pull thier BTS off of any exchanges that vote with BTS they don't really own.
+5%
-
exchange vote may change the status of voting apathy, that's good to the community.
users surely have the right to withdraw their BTS if they do not agree on whom to vote with the exchange, the relation is like miner and mining pool, if a miner do not like one pool, he for sure can switch to another pool.
hope polo can join soon.
-
exchange vote may change the status of voting apathy, that's good to the community.
users surely have the right to withdraw their BTS if they do not agree on whom to vote with the exchange, the relation is like miner and mining pool, if a miner do not like one pool, he for sure can switch to another pool.
hope polo can join soon.
wrong.
if you send BTS to an exchange you want to trade it, not participate in political decisions.
any exchange voting with users funds should be punished by its users.
whatever this exchange is, void it like the plague.
-
unrelated info , BTC38's reputation was hurt badly by the DNS merger .
I think exchanges should have a say in bitshares . because they sell BTS to people , if BTS screw with the users and investors , exchanges will be hurt more and maybe even legally responsible .
those who don't wish exchanges vote with their stake , just withdraw it .
-
exchange vote may change the status of voting apathy, that's good to the community.
users surely have the right to withdraw their BTS if they do not agree on whom to vote with the exchange, the relation is like miner and mining pool, if a miner do not like one pool, he for sure can switch to another pool.
hope polo can join soon.
wrong.
if you send BTS to an exchange you want to trade it, not participate in political decisions.
any exchange voting with users funds should be punished by its users.
whatever this exchange is, void it like the plague.
So more users can move to DEX, yay!
-
exchange vote may change the status of voting apathy, that's good to the community.
users surely have the right to withdraw their BTS if they do not agree on whom to vote with the exchange, the relation is like miner and mining pool, if a miner do not like one pool, he for sure can switch to another pool.
hope polo can join soon.
wrong.
if you send BTS to an exchange you want to trade it, not participate in political decisions.
any exchange voting with users funds should be punished by its users.
whatever this exchange is, void it like the plague.
that depends on what agreement has been reached between the exchange and the users.
and even they haven't touched this kind of agreement-normally they haven't, as voting is new even in cryptocurrencies. they can touch from now - "deposit to the exchange will be regarded as setting the exchange as voting proxy", exchange can offer such an agreement and user can select agree or not.
-
good job +5% +5%
-
under current situation, BTS is actually controlled by CNX and BM, we need an opponent, so I say yes. let's see what will happen.
+5%
-
Who controls the shares get to vote with them. If they give their shares to an exchange they give the exchange the right to use them. Like puting your money in a bank, its not your money again until you withdraw if. If you can withdraw it...
-
It's a free world, but idea this sounds risky, misguided, and quite possibly idiotic. I wouldn't trust any external exchange to hold my BTS. That's why we have our own transparent and decentralized DEX.
-
Whenever there is voting power threating the king bytemaster will lead to the rule changes. BTS is bytemaster's private toy, he won't allow being challenged.
-
Whenever there is voting power threating the king bytemaster will lead to the rule changes. BTS is bytemaster's private toy, he won't allow being challenged.
I don't think what you said is true, I'd like to know how @bytemaster think about this.
-
Whenever there is voting power threating the king bytemaster will lead to the rule changes. BTS is bytemaster's private toy, he won't allow being challenged.
I don't think what you said is true, I'd like to know how @bytemaster think about this.
Exactly. I think you all may have made Bytemaster into a bigger boogey man than he possiblly could be.
-
Whenever there is voting power threating the king bytemaster will lead to the rule changes. BTS is bytemaster's private toy, he won't allow being challenged.
I don't think what you said is true, I'd like to know how @bytemaster think about this.
What he says is not important. He and his father were always able to find nice words to cover when they insulted investors.
The worst part of this is that investors couldn't run or fight back because their BTS is still in vested.........
-
I guess you are behind this bitcrab? You have been very vocal against Bytemaster, so you decided to go and urged this exchange (is it Yunbi (https://yunbi.com/)?) to start voting?
-
This is a terrible idea. Exchanges didn't expend any capital to acquire that voting stake, so if they so chose, they can attack the network with zero cost using their stake to vote.
-
That doesn't seem like a good idea to me. I hope people pull thier BTS off of any exchanges that vote with BTS they don't really own.
+5%
Hopefully there won't be any complaints about exchanges voting, they have enough support because shareholders use their service and have the ability to remove their BTS from exchanges & vote against them if they choose. As Stan has repeatedly explained 'Silence means consent'
What we've got is an ideal case of "silence means consent". If there is ever a case when apathy turns to anger, then the majority has the ability to remove the benevolent dictator by raising as little as 5% or 10% worth of opposition.
I would not invest in a company directed by its shareholders.
All is swell.
If not, sell.
:)
If there are enough votes for and everyone else abstains - silence means consent.
If there are not enough votes and everyone else abstains - silence means dissent.
-
If exchanges vote, people will simply have to take that into account on whether to deal with them.
A good way to lose half their customers is to favor one side over another.
So I expect most to remain neutral.
-
I guess you are behind this bitcrab? You have been very vocal against Bytemaster, so you decided to go and urged this exchange (is it Yunbi (https://yunbi.com/)?) to start voting?
yes, I am behind this, I am not against bytemaster, but I believe Bitshares need more decentralization in decision making.
so I'd like to get more stake into voting.
I am not able to urge anyone, all what I can do is to tell them my ideas and suggest.
-
I guess you are behind this bitcrab? You have been very vocal against Bytemaster, so you decided to go and urged this exchange (is it Yunbi (https://yunbi.com/)?) to start voting?
yes, I am behind this, I am not against bytemaster, but I believe Bitshares need more decentralization in decision making.
so I'd like to get more stake into voting.
I am not able to urge anyone, all what I can do is to tell them my ideas and suggest.
amazing mindset for a committee member.
quoting for future references.
-
This is a terrible idea. Exchanges didn't expend any capital to acquire that voting stake, so if they so chose, they can attack the network with zero cost using their stake to vote.
they have no cost, but they need to be responsible for their users, if they do not want lose customers.
-
I think you're abusing your power here in this case.
The users of your exchange have not authorized you to vote with THEIR stake.
-
I think you're abusing your power here in this case.
The users of your exchange have not authorized you to vote with THEIR stake.
+5% This is a valid point.
Still if Stan is correct that 'silence means consent' then the response would be to remove stake from that exchange if they didn't agree with their voting or the fact that they were voting at all.
Edit, though being concerned about taking advantage of exchange users is pretty hypocritical coming from you. Didn't you dump your BTS 1.0 on unsuspecting holders who weren't aware of the upgrade?
http://imgur.com/du63Pkl
look what they are posting on poloniex trollbox!
londonwhale: mindphlux, is dumping: http://imgur.com/du63Pkl
-
I think you're abusing your power here in this case.
The users of your exchange have not authorized you to vote with THEIR stake.
there's no "my" exchange.
all what I have done is to suggest exchange to vote.
exchange is free to listen to me or not.
user of the exchange is free to withdraw their BTS from the exchange if they do not like the exchange to vote.
I am free to suggest.
-
I think you're abusing your power here in this case.
The users of your exchange have not authorized you to vote with THEIR stake.
+5%
-
unrelated info , BTC38's reputation was hurt badly by the DNS merger .
I think exchanges should have a say in bitshares . because they sell BTS to people , if BTS screw with the users and investors , exchanges will be hurt more and maybe even legally responsible .
those who don't wish exchanges vote with their stake , just withdraw it .
Since when do exchanges have ANY say in what ANY cryptos do? Just because we have a voting system they should just be handed over those rights?
I park my car in a parking garage for a week.. gives them the right to do whatever they want with my car.. take it for spin.. sell it.. use it as collateral for other things?
How many people would park their cars in that garages if that's what was going on?
That is exactly what is about to happen here if exchanges start voting.
-
This is a terrible idea. Exchanges didn't expend any capital to acquire that voting stake, so if they so chose, they can attack the network with zero cost using their stake to vote.
+5% +5% +5% +5% +5%
The only plus side if this starts is stake holders should be moving their funds back to the DEX... unless those holders really do not care about voting.. in which case though they may inadvertently be enabling players to affect their holdings by them using their voting power for self interests instead of BTS interests.
-
unrelated info , BTC38's reputation was hurt badly by the DNS merger .
I think exchanges should have a say in bitshares . because they sell BTS to people , if BTS screw with the users and investors , exchanges will be hurt more and maybe even legally responsible .
those who don't wish exchanges vote with their stake , just withdraw it .
Since when do exchanges have ANY say in what ANY cryptos do? Just because we have a voting system they should just be handed over those rights?
I park my car in a parking garage for a week.. gives them the right to do whatever they want with my car.. take it for spin.. sell it.. use it as collateral for other things?
How many people would park their cars in that garages if that's what was going on?
That is exactly what is about to happen here if exchanges start voting.
No, you can park your car to the other place, people are free to trade BTS on centrelize exchanges or trade on DEX. and I also don't think all centrelize exchange will vote, so you always have a choise if you don't like it.
acutally I'm very interested and want to see what will happen.
-
This is nice. Fast forward a few months when BitShares actually competes with these exchanges and they can vote against anything that can harm them at zero cost, while keeping BitShares from evolving. Well thought, definitely ;)
-
unrelated info , BTC38's reputation was hurt badly by the DNS merger .
I think exchanges should have a say in bitshares . because they sell BTS to people , if BTS screw with the users and investors , exchanges will be hurt more and maybe even legally responsible .
those who don't wish exchanges vote with their stake , just withdraw it .
Since when do exchanges have ANY say in what ANY cryptos do? Just because we have a voting system they should just be handed over those rights?
I park my car in a parking garage for a week.. gives them the right to do whatever they want with my car.. take it for spin.. sell it.. use it as collateral for other things?
How many people would park their cars in that garages if that's what was going on?
That is exactly what is about to happen here if exchanges start voting.
How do you expect to prevent an exchange from voting? It's a moot point unless some sort of manual intervention is done. They are responsible for the security of the BTS being held on their exchange, so I believe it is fair for them to vote. And they are using a proxy, so I don't believe voter apathy will be as big of an issue.
-
unrelated info , BTC38's reputation was hurt badly by the DNS merger .
I think exchanges should have a say in bitshares . because they sell BTS to people , if BTS screw with the users and investors , exchanges will be hurt more and maybe even legally responsible .
those who don't wish exchanges vote with their stake , just withdraw it .
Since when do exchanges have ANY say in what ANY cryptos do? Just because we have a voting system they should just be handed over those rights?
I park my car in a parking garage for a week.. gives them the right to do whatever they want with my car.. take it for spin.. sell it.. use it as collateral for other things?
How many people would park their cars in that garages if that's what was going on?
That is exactly what is about to happen here if exchanges start voting.
How do you expect to prevent an exchange from voting? It's a moot point unless some sort of manual intervention is done. They are responsible for the security of the BTS being held on their exchange, so I believe it is fair for them to vote. And they are using a proxy, so I don't believe voter apathy will be as big of an issue.
"How many people would park their cars in that garages if that's what was going on?"
Not many I believe.. I already outlined how... exchanges would only hurt their own volume... thats all they care about.. they won't do anything that might rock that boat. In this instance one small one has been convinced by someone with some weight to start making such moves. How that is going to work out for them remains to be seen.
-
I guess you are behind this bitcrab? You have been very vocal against Bytemaster, so you decided to go and urged this exchange (is it Yunbi (https://yunbi.com/)?) to start voting?
yes, I am behind this, I am not against bytemaster, but I believe Bitshares need more decentralization in decision making.
so I'd like to get more stake into voting.
I am not able to urge anyone, all what I can do is to tell them my ideas and suggest.
Come on, you have been protesting everything that Bytemaster does very actively, this is clearly an attack purely against him.
If you had honestly wanted to help the progress of decentralization you would have asked opinions of other members of the community first. There are very good reasons for why this is not good for Bitshares.
That said, I'm not totally against of exchangest voting. But that would require a few things to happen:
- The exchange informs all customers about this, and preferably also asks them explicitely if this is accetable or not. Did they do it on this case?
- The exchange informs the Bitshares community about this. In this case they didn't.
- The exchange explains their motivation to vote. Are they going to be an active member of the community? Are they going to do more business with Bitshares than just selling BTS? This is really important because exchanges can be our competitors. It might be a serious problem if our competitors start to influence our decisions.
- If exchange is using a proxy, the proxy should explains it's reasons for voting. In this case they are voting laomao who has not published any information of his voting reasoning.
If an exchange is seriously interested in Bitshares and wants to become an active member of the community because they believe in Bitshares, we can welcome them.
But this case is totally fucked up. So what should we do about it? Should we contact Yunbi and ask them to remove their votes?
-
I guess you are behind this bitcrab? You have been very vocal against Bytemaster, so you decided to go and urged this exchange (is it Yunbi (https://yunbi.com/)?) to start voting?
yes, I am behind this, I am not against bytemaster, but I believe Bitshares need more decentralization in decision making.
so I'd like to get more stake into voting.
I am not able to urge anyone, all what I can do is to tell them my ideas and suggest.
Come on, you have been protesting everything that Bytemaster does very actively, this is clearly an attack purely against him.
If you had honestly wanted to help the progress of decentralization you would have asked opinions of other members of the community first. There are very good reasons for why this is not good for Bitshares.
That said, I'm not totally against of exchangest voting. But that would require a few things to happen:
- The exchange informs all customers about this, and preferably also asks them explicitely if this is accetable or not. Did they do it on this case?
- The exchange informs the Bitshares community about this. In this case they didn't.
- The exchange explains their motivation to vote. Are they going to be an active member of the community? Are they going to do more business with Bitshares than just selling BTS? This is really important because exchanges can be our competitors. It might be a serious problem if our competitors start to influence our decisions.
- If exchange is using a proxy, the proxy should explains it's reasons for voting. In this case they are voting laomao who has not published any information of his voting reasoning.
If an exchange is seriously interested in Bitshares and wants to become an active member of the community because they believe in Bitshares, we can welcome them.
But this case is totally fucked up. So what should we do about it? Should we contact Yunbi and ask them to remove their votes?
why? exchanges have the right to do anything they want. they only have responsibility to their users, it can do above things you want, it can do not. if a wallet have BTS, it's one of the community and have the right to vote.
-
I guess you are behind this bitcrab? You have been very vocal against Bytemaster, so you decided to go and urged this exchange (is it Yunbi (https://yunbi.com/)?) to start voting?
yes, I am behind this, I am not against bytemaster, but I believe Bitshares need more decentralization in decision making.
so I'd like to get more stake into voting.
I am not able to urge anyone, all what I can do is to tell them my ideas and suggest.
Come on, you have been protesting everything that Bytemaster does very actively, this is clearly an attack purely against him.
If you had honestly wanted to help the progress of decentralization you would have asked opinions of other members of the community first. There are very good reasons for why this is not good for Bitshares.
That said, I'm not totally against of exchangest voting. But that would require a few things to happen:
- The exchange informs all customers about this, and preferably also asks them explicitely if this is accetable or not. Did they do it on this case?
- The exchange informs the Bitshares community about this. In this case they didn't.
- The exchange explains their motivation to vote. Are they going to be an active member of the community? Are they going to do more business with Bitshares than just selling BTS? This is really important because exchanges can be our competitors. It might be a serious problem if our competitors start to influence our decisions.
- If exchange is using a proxy, the proxy should explains it's reasons for voting. In this case they are voting laomao who has not published any information of his voting reasoning.
If an exchange is seriously interested in Bitshares and wants to become an active member of the community because they believe in Bitshares, we can welcome them.
But this case is totally fucked up. So what should we do about it? Should we contact Yunbi and ask them to remove their votes?
exactly speaking, I am against bytemaster in some cases, but in most cases I support him, otherwise I would have left Bitshares for months,I think Bitshares need him, I think the relation between bytemaster and committee should be as that between CEO and board, or President and Congress.
Opposition make sense, especially in bitshares community where there are too much simple followers.
yes, things should be better if there's more communication in advance, but it is not late even the communication begin from now.
I'd like to provide more info about yunbi according to my understanding about them and communication with them, I don't guarantee it's exact.
yunbi is an exchange that believes very much on decentralization and application value, they have taken off litecoin and dogecoin because they don't think these coins make sense, they are only simple altcoins.
they do not want to be active members in community, because they do not have so much time/resource for BTS, they get many information of BTS from my side, they vote mainly because they would like to help to make the committee more diversified/dencentralized.
laomao is the COO of yunbi, he do not have much time to spend on BTS. if you think community know too little about laomao, maybe I can suggest them to set me as proxy?
there is a QQ group of yunbi, 2442579, if you need to contact them and get known more, you can join to find laomao and the CEO.
don't complain why they do not want to spend time on BTS, they have told me:"we really hope BTS can have a good future, but we have little confidence on this, we are not sure it is decentralized, we can keep the trading pair, but we do not want to pay more resource on it."
they now only put their hot wallet in voting, they may put also the cold wallet in voting next week.
-
I prefer that all exchanges set proxies. Bitshares is more secure that way and there is more of a balance of power in regards to voting. If you don't like the proxy an exchange chooses then switch exchanges.
I personally feel so strongly about this that I think we should force exchanges to set a proxy by only using the ones that do.
-
I personally feel so strongly about this that I think we should force exchanges to set a proxy by only using the ones that do.
By lending your money to an exchange you are not only accepting the counterparty risk but also lending your voting power and every right that is linked to that stake.
That`s the game.
-
unrelated info , BTC38's reputation was hurt badly by the DNS merger .
I think exchanges should have a say in bitshares . because they sell BTS to people , if BTS screw with the users and investors , exchanges will be hurt more and maybe even legally responsible .
those who don't wish exchanges vote with their stake , just withdraw it .
Since when do exchanges have ANY say in what ANY cryptos do? Just because we have a voting system they should just be handed over those rights?
I park my car in a parking garage for a week.. gives them the right to do whatever they want with my car.. take it for spin.. sell it.. use it as collateral for other things?
How many people would park their cars in that garages if that's what was going on?
That is exactly what is about to happen here if exchanges start voting.
People park their money in banks and that's exactly what they do.
-
This is a terrible idea. Exchanges didn't expend any capital to acquire that voting stake, so if they so chose, they can attack the network with zero cost using their stake to vote.
+5%
-
Whenever there is voting power threating the king bytemaster will lead to the rule changes. BTS is bytemaster's private toy, he won't allow being challenged.
I welcome the challenge and feel no need to control. I just try to help.
-
Whenever there is voting power threating the king bytemaster will lead to the rule changes. BTS is bytemaster's private toy, he won't allow being challenged.
I welcome the challenge and feel no need to control. I just try to help.
Having the exchanges vote should bring in more stability to bitshares... changes should be a process and debated by as many players as possible. This is a good thing.
-
On the bright side, can we use that for some marketing? I mean, most exchanges don't care about coins, they just add the ones with volume with profit.
This way we can claim that exchanges actually care about BitShares. That means something.
-
I would be very happy to see exchanges voting +5% +5% and if their vote harm bts holders so be it :( :(... Maybe bts holders will stop parking their funds in the exchanges then and maybe they start doing some serious trading in the DEX instead and bring some liquidity..
I did park my bts in polo in the past and used them as collateral to margin trade long and I overpaid that last time it crashed..Never again..So unless you want to do the same mistake and margin trade your bts I don't understand why keeping bts in exchanges anymore..Bring that liquidity in DEX or else we will suffer the consequences of potential absurd voting from exchanges
-
Exchange is free to vote with BTS which you, dumb assholes, keep in their wallet. This is absolutely just. You give your BTS away, you give your vote away. As simple as this. Don't complain about this, because if you do, you look like idiots.
-
Exchange is free to vote with BTS which you, dumb assholes, keep in their wallet. This is absolutely just. You give your BTS away, you give your vote away. As simple as this. Don't complain about this, because if you do, you look like idiots.
Although you are correct, this exposes one of the great weaknesses of the POS model, which is highly undesirable, hence the concern.
-
Technically it's dangerous for the system that one can vote for more than 1/2 of committee members, especial when we have voting apathy issue right now, since the committee-account has too much power that we may not aware of. For testing purpose, I'll try to propose some terrible proposals for the committee.
Technically it's unable to recognize an account is an exchange account or not. In addition exchange account can be hacked/compromised, as a result the fund may be transferred to another non-exchange account, so hard-coding the exchange account name is not practicable.
So technically bitcrab's proposal in another thread makes sense. https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20858.0.html
//Update:
Have proposed a "terrible" proposal: http://cryptofresh.com/p/1.10.50.
-
Technically it's dangerous for the system that one can vote for more than 1/2 of committee members
you are definitely right, vote for more than 1/2 committee, that's a super bomb. hope BTC38 never be hacked
@Bytemаsteг
-
Exchange is free to vote with BTS which you, dumb assholes, keep in their wallet. This is absolutely just. You give your BTS away, you give your vote away. As simple as this. Don't complain about this, because if you do, you look like idiots.
Although you are correct, this exposes one of the great weaknesses of the POS model, which is highly undesirable, hence the concern.
Exactly, this is why bitcrab's action should have needed throughout discussion first so that everybody would have known the potential problems. I would have preferred that Bitshares were much bigger until there is an attack against this weakness. There would have been better possibilities to attract traders from the voting exchange to Bitshares exchange.
exactly speaking, I am against bytemaster in some cases, but in most cases I support him, otherwise I would have left Bitshares for months,I think Bitshares need him, I think the relation between bytemaster and committee should be as that between CEO and board, or President and Congress.
Bytemaster doesn't have a position compared to CEO. He is just a powerful shareholder. Also he knows the system best because he invented it, that gives some value for his opinions. But that's not in any way an official position in DAC.
Opposition make sense, especially in bitshares community where there are too much simple followers.
Opposition just for the sake of opposing something isn't valuable. If the opposition can create good criticism and helpful counterproposals, then it will be valuable. So far we have seen mostly just complaining without any credible alternative plans.
they do not want to be active members in community, because they do not have so much time/resource for BTS, they get many information of BTS from my side, they vote mainly because they would like to help to make the committee more diversified/dencentralized.
That's not even remotely good way to create more decentralization. You are just getting more power for yourself. If you really want more decentralization and diversification, you should try to attract more independent actors, people who won't be "simple followers" but rather think with their own brains and vote with their own stake.
don't complain why they do not want to spend time on BTS, they have told me:"we really hope BTS can have a good future, but we have little confidence on this, we are not sure it is decentralized, we can keep the trading pair, but we do not want to pay more resource on it."
With this kind of attitude it's not good if they vote!
Corporation democracy works pretty well because everybody who can vote has skin in the game. It's their own money that they are voting with. If they vote badly, value of their assets go down. And vice versa, if they vote well, value of their assets go up. This will create good incentive to use time and resources to analyze what's the best way to vote.
Voting just because of voting is usually stupid. It will just pollute the votepool with uninformed votes. Voters who vote without having a clear understanding what they are doing are messing the result of the election. If there are lots of uninformed voters, the probability of bad result will go up. In the case of Bitshares this would mean that we'll get bad committee members and untrustworthy witnesses and spend money on useless worker proposals. This will decrease the value of BTS.
It's a problem if an exchange votes because they don't have skin in the game. If they vote badly, they don't depreciate value of their own assets, because they don't own BTS – their customers own it. If Bitshares suffers from bad voting, the exchange itself doesn't suffer. It might even benefit if people start to trade more because price of BTS is going down.
-
why do you assume that an exchange would vote in a bad way for bitshares? No one can make this assumption. Maybe the exchange would vote for the interests of the bts it holds and hence in the interest of bitshares..I am not into voting currently since my stake is insignificant but I see a lot of problems with the current votes. There are witnesses voted who haven't updated their price feeds for ages..How bad is that? I would prefer an exchange to vote for it self and provide more accurate feed prices for example..
-
So technically bitcrab's proposal in another thread makes sense. https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20858.0.html
I think community need to reevaluate the necessity of the proposal. @Stan @xeroc
yes, there's really some challenge while exchange voting comes, thanks for the reminding from @abit
-
don't complain why they do not want to spend time on BTS, they have told me:"we really hope BTS can have a good future, but we have little confidence on this, we are not sure it is decentralized, we can keep the trading pair, but we do not want to pay more resource on it."
With this kind of attitude it's not good if they vote!
Corporation democracy works pretty well because everybody who can vote has skin in the game.
Going after the exchanges is not the solution.
IMHO fight voter apathy is the key.
-
@bitcrab: I appreciate and welcome that you have contacted yunbi to tell them about the voting feature. It does no good to hide and ignore the issue assuming exchanges would not vote ..
Actually, I would go one step further and also let tge exchanges kbow about the option to vote with their customers' stake.
BUT: we need to tell the right away that they should inform their customera about their decision, risk customers that disagree and withdraw their funds and tell thrm that they probably enter a higjly political ground once they start voting ...
We should also tell them about the risk if the misuse their power since it could easily crush the whole network.
Further, we need to educate shareholder as officially as possible (bts.org/bsip) and let them know about their RESPONSIBILITIES and that they give up their voting power if they leave funds at a cent. exchange ..
We should also ask exchanges to publish a statement of their decisions.
I really prefer an open discussion with exchanges.
If someone could craft a few paragraphs from this thread so that we can educate them probably, I can forward it to the exchanges.
Thanks @bitcrab for bringing this topic on the table again.
-
why do you assume that an exchange would vote in a bad way for bitshares? No one can make this assumption.
Because they don't have skin in the game. When people don't have their own money at stake, they don't care how it's spent. Of course they can say that they care, and maybe they do for a while, but in the long run everybody cares more about their own money than others'.
And I don't mean that exchange will always vote badly on purpose. Exchanges can easily become apathetic voters because they don't have an incentive to actively check if their proxy is doing a good job or not. They will just vote for somebody and leave it that way. Because exchanges usually have very big stake, this is not desirable.
Maybe the exchange would vote for the interests of the bts it holds and hence in the interest of bitshares..
Hoping for the best is not usually very viable business strategy. And in this case bitcrab already told that they are not interested in taking active participation in Bitshares decision making.
I am not into voting currently since my stake is insignificant but I see a lot of problems with the current votes. There are witnesses voted who haven't updated their price feeds for ages..How bad is that? I would prefer an exchange to vote for it self and provide more accurate feed prices for example..
Even if you don't have much stake, it's still useful to vote. Whenever you happen to convince a friend or somebody else to invest in Bitshares, you can tell them to vote you if they are too lazy to analyze all the possible candidates themselves, which is usually the case.
-
why do you assume that an exchange would vote in a bad way for bitshares? No one can make this assumption.
Because they don't have skin in the game. When people don't have their own money at stake, they don't care how it's spent. Of course they can say that they care, and maybe they do for a while, but in the long run everybody cares more about their own money than others'.
tl;dr Btc38 did earn a large stake of BTS via trading fee of PTS and BTS and DNS. True for Bter and Polo perhaps. But yunbi did not since it's free..
@Samupaha rather than complaining, would you like to provide some constructive suggestions? Imo Xeroc's comment above makes much sense.
-
99% of the exchanges can't even follow simple development updates on github. people encouraging them to use their users' funds just want to see the world burn
-
99% of the exchanges can't even follow simple development updates on github. people encouraging them to use their users' funds just want to see the world burn
So your suggestion? Hard-code a list of exchanges and prevent them from voting?
DO something please.
-
Have the exchange's distribute their voting power equally through all committee members. That way it shouldn't make much difference. For example, everyone would have +50M votes. It's a lot, but at least it's more distributed.
-
Have the exchange's distribute their voting power equally through all committee members. That way it shouldn't make much difference. For example, everyone would have +50M votes. It's a lot, but at least it's more distributed.
That's the same as them not voting, which is much better because then its easier to spot exchanges which do vote, thereby breaking the social contract.
-
Have the exchange's distribute their voting power equally through all committee members. That way it shouldn't make much difference. For example, everyone would have +50M votes. It's a lot, but at least it's more distributed.
That's the same as them not voting, which is much better because then its easier to spot exchanges which do vote, thereby breaking the social contract.
Distributing their voting power among several proxies may make more sense.
-
Have the exchange's distribute their voting power equally through all committee members. That way it shouldn't make much difference. For example, everyone would have +50M votes. It's a lot, but at least it's more distributed.
That's the same as them not voting, which is much better because then its easier to spot exchanges which do vote, thereby breaking the social contract.
Have you contacted them about this social contract because I have not .. and I dont think they know about it ...
-
Have the exchange's distribute their voting power equally through all committee members. That way it shouldn't make much difference. For example, everyone would have +50M votes. It's a lot, but at least it's more distributed.
That's the same as them not voting, which is much better because then its easier to spot exchanges which do vote, thereby breaking the social contract.
Have you contacted them about this social contract because I have not .. and I dont think they know about it ...
Sorry, but which social contract are you talking about?
-
Thats the point .. there never really was an exchange-novote-'social consensus'
And even if there was, the exchanges wouldnt know
-
Thats the point .. there never really was an exchange-novote-'social consensus'
And even if there was, the exchanges wouldnt know
There is always a stink kicked up when an exchange is discovered to be forging blocks with other people's stake, in any POS currency. The social contract revolves around negative publicity.
-
Thats the point .. there never really was an exchange-novote-'social consensus'
And even if there was, the exchanges wouldnt know
There is always a stink kicked up when an exchange is discovered to be forging blocks with other people's stake, in any POS currency. The social contract revolves around negative publicity.
I think the negative publicity is greater that it only takes 15% stake to attack Bitshares than the fact that exchanges would have a large war chest to vote with.
They wouldn't necessarily be forging blocks anyways.. unless they happened to get voted in as a delegate. As stated upthread, maybe this would spur more people to use the DEX as well.
-
I think the negative publicity is greater that it only takes 15% stake to attack Bitshares than the fact that exchanges would have a large war chest to vote with.
They wouldn't necessarily be forging blocks anyways.. unless they happened to get voted in as a delegate. As stated upthread, maybe this would spur more people to use the DEX as well.
But the point is, the exchanges are *the* most likely candidates to abuse that voting power; they expended no capital to acquire the power, they can do whatever they like with it. This is a fundamental problem with (D)POS, the only thing we can do is try and have them uphold the social contract of not voting in the first place.
-
I think the negative publicity is greater that it only takes 15% stake to attack Bitshares than the fact that exchanges would have a large war chest to vote with.
They wouldn't necessarily be forging blocks anyways.. unless they happened to get voted in as a delegate. As stated upthread, maybe this would spur more people to use the DEX as well.
But the point is, the exchanges are *the* most likely candidates to abuse that voting power; they expended no capital to acquire the power, they can do whatever they like with it. This is a fundamental problem with (D)POS, the only thing we can do is try and have them uphold the social contract of not voting in the first place.
Hmm. Good point.
What if we added the ability for vote for a different proxy with different percentages of your stake. Then we would need to make a social contact... such as an exchange should vote with 25% of their stake for the top 4 proxies (25% each) so it balances out the voting power among multiple individuals. The stake they contribute should not count towards that amount of votes considered to be the top 4 proxies.
Or... something similar to what was said up thread... that the votes be split among all of the committee members.
Or.. maybe a better idea.... a "stakeholder" proxy option. For example, if an exchange had 1% stake then that voting power should be split in between all of the remaining 99% of stakeholders evenly. This eliminates politics from the equation, and at the same time makes the network safer.
I've seen you are participating in Anonymint's consensus algorithm discussion on BCT... I am looking forward to reading that thread but haven't had time. Is there anything useful you think could be implemented/tweaked in dPoS to improve it?
-
I've seen you are participating in Anonymint's consensus algorithm discussion on BCT... I am looking forward to reading that thread but haven't had time. Is there anything useful you think could be implemented/tweaked in dPoS to improve it?
Yes, I've mentioned before that totally removing the voting element is the only way to go. That would at least bring DPOS inline with plain POS in terms of majority stake influence.
Rank the top N staking accounts by stake and automatically make them the block producers.
-
there's no social contract/consensus that exchange should not vote, the problem is only how exchange should communicate with their users on this issue.
from committee perspective, the problem is how to define the rule to prevent one big account from controlling the whole network, maybe one option is to restrict the committee number one account can at most vote.
no proff to tell that exchanges are more likely to abuse power, they do not spend capital for the stake, but they are responsible for their users.
-
there's no social contract/consensus that exchange should not vote, the problem is only how exchange should communicate with their users on this issue.
from committee perspective, the problem is how to define the rule to prevent one big account from controlling the whole network, maybe one option is to restrict the committee number one account can at most vote.
no proff to tell that exchanges are more likely to abuse power, they do not spend capital for the stake, but they are responsible for their users.
Once you let the genie out of the box, you won't be able to put it back in.
-
I've seen you are participating in Anonymint's consensus algorithm discussion on BCT... I am looking forward to reading that thread but haven't had time. Is there anything useful you think could be implemented/tweaked in dPoS to improve it?
Yes, I've mentioned before that totally removing the voting element is the only way to go. That would at least bring DPOS inline with plain POS in terms of majority stake influence.
Rank the top N staking accounts by stake and automatically make them the block producers.
Imo your idea is no difference with "one stake can only vote for one witness".
In addition, with voting, small stake holders are able to speak by grouping.
-
there's no social contract/consensus that exchange should not vote, the problem is only how exchange should communicate with their users on this issue.
from committee perspective, the problem is how to define the rule to prevent one big account from controlling the whole network, maybe one option is to restrict the committee number one account can at most vote.
no proff to tell that exchanges are more likely to abuse power, they do not spend capital for the stake, but they are responsible for their users.
Once you let the genie out of the box, you won't be able to put it back in.
either I let or not, they will finally come out, the point is to be ready to defend the system, not to expect them to stay in the box for ever.
and, I'd rather to let them out earlier, then the system can be ready earlier also.
-
there's no social contract/consensus that exchange should not vote, the problem is only how exchange should communicate with their users on this issue.
from committee perspective, the problem is how to define the rule to prevent one big account from controlling the whole network, maybe one option is to restrict the committee number one account can at most vote.
no proff to tell that exchanges are more likely to abuse power, they do not spend capital for the stake, but they are responsible for their users.
Once you let the genie out of the box, you won't be able to put it back in.
either I let or not, they will finally come out, the point is to be ready to defend the system, not to expect them to stay in the box for ever.
and, I'd rather to let them out earlier, then the system can be ready earlier also.
Sending a new born puppy out to fight dogs.. or throwing a new born bird out of the nest before it has feathers.. that's not in the interest of the new born. In both instances they have not had time to grow and develop. In this instance it's the same.
You may have just caused more businesses to run from using Bitshares.. for what exactly?
-
Sending a new born puppy out to fight dogs.. or throwing a new born bird out of the nest before it has feathers.. that's not in the interest of the new born. In both instances they have not had time to grow and develop. In this instance it's the same.
not same, it's easy for exchange to understand what they are doing, and to judge whether voting conflict with their interest.
You may have just caused more businesses to run from using Bitshares.. for what exactly?
no new business, however I may propose to lower the transfer fee in recent future.
-
not same, it's easy for exchange to understand what they are doing, and to judge whether voting conflict with their interest.
Yes, and they could easily decide that it's in their best interests to vote out all the delegates and vote in their own unique set. Giving one entity so much power is a very bad idea.
-
not same, it's easy for exchange to understand what they are doing, and to judge whether voting conflict with their interest.
Yes, and they could easily decide that it's in their best interests to vote out all the delegates and vote in their own unique set. Giving one entity so much power is a very bad idea.
yes, that's why I propose to restrict the maximum committee members one account can vote.
and the another question is, BM has so much power now, don't you think this is also bad?
-
Scenario #1 - Gee it looks like that Bitshares DEX is really starting to take off... we have seen a decline in our total volume trading by X% because of it.. we better do something. Oh look.. we can just take over their committee and make changes as we please. Well lets just jack up all the trading fees in there to get everyone back here. While we are at it lets adjust a few other parameters so they make the cover of Coindesk and nobody ever trusts moving their trades their again.. that should get everyone back here in good form.
Scenario #2 - I am a good exchange and want to do what is best for my users. Looks like I can assign someone to make sure that this Bitshares DEX doesn't ever take any of my business. Fantastic.. let me just assign my voting power to troll#1 here and I will be completely blameless for the havok he causes.
Scenario #3 - Hey fellow exchanges.. this bitcrab guy contacted me about how we can take over bitshares committee and control all their fees. Let's all work together on a great pump and dump and make some money.
Scenario #4 - We are going to assign our votes to proxies who will work in the interests of Bitshares only because it's good for our business even though we are heavily vested in Bitcoin. Sunshine lollipops and rainbows everywhere.
Sooooo out of these scenarios, which do you see being most likely? Is there ANOTHER scenario that is believable where exchange participation doesn't turn out anything like these? I again question what good comes of this other than possibly forcing users to move away from the exchanges into the DEX.
At the moment other committee members have had to work through the weekend to try and take some kind of measures that could help protect Bitshares because of what this has started. We are still puppies though without defense against the dogs you just asked us to go up against.
Regarding your last message.. trying to compare this to some counter against BM voting power is just plain false. BM is HEAVILY invested in ensuring the protection and growth of Bitshares while other exchanges have no interests aligned at all. As a matter of fact, they are smart to destroy their competition given the opportunity.
Having a discussion about this to prepare for such things is one thing, but going out and actively attempting to bring bigger dogs in to eat puppies is another. That's what you did.
-
@BunkerChain Labs
exchanges(here I only talk about yunbi and btc38) do not think they can control Bitshares, and they understand that they need a stable Bitshares, not a Bitshares in trouble, and they do not think DEX is their competitors, and, please believe, BTS trading is not so important for them now, they even do not want to pay more resource on BTS.
all the scenarios are imagined by you, I can also imagine that BM and you conspire to exploit all the shareholders, but I wouldn't.
at least half of the committee members support me to do so, don't think you can represent the interest of BTS community, even BM said he will just give help.
yes, BM and exchange are different, BM are so good at the design of the system infrastructure, but he may be not so good at understanding some business, and his own interest can also conflict with the interest of the whole shareholders. Giving any entity too much power will be bad, including BM.
as a committee member, my idea is to make a balance on the committee, so need to introduce more voting powers, maybe also need to refine the rule. all these is to avoid the committee be under any single entity's control.
I haven't began asking big dogs, I just invited a little dog to come out to let everyone know him, otherwise no changes are possible, I'll help the system to grow for the coming of big dogs.
don't worry.
-
Seeing 60m bts voting for zero witnesses does not inspire me with confidence in the knowledge or commitment of those voting. If you have bts at yunbi, be aware.
-
all the scenarios are imagined by you, I can also imagine that BM and you conspire to exploit all the shareholders, but I wouldn't.
at least half of the committee members support me to do so, don't think you can represent the interest of BTS community, even BM said he will just give help.
yes, BM and exchange are different, BM are so good at the design of the system infrastructure, but he may be not so good at understanding some business, and his own interest can also conflict with the interest of the whole shareholders. Giving any entity too much power will be bad, including BM.
as a committee member, my idea is to make a balance on the committee, so need to introduce more voting powers, maybe also need to refine the rule. all these is to avoid the committee be under any single entity's control.
I haven't began asking big dogs, I just invited a little dog to come out to let everyone know him, otherwise no changes are possible, I'll help the system to grow for the coming of big dogs.
don't worry.
The committee members (primarily puppies) have been working on measures through the weekend to protect Bitshares against scenarios of bad proposals being passed. We finally did a test today that at the time did not have clayop voted in (congrates btw!)... it got support from every committee member except one.
http://cryptofresh.com/p/1.10.58
This is just one measure. More needs to be done now to protect BTS against real exploit.
-
Seeing 60m bts voting for zero witnesses does not inspire me with confidence in the knowledge or commitment of those voting. If you have bts at yunbi, be aware.
I'm withdrawing mine. Can't use Yunbi anymore, i guess. Too bad.
-
good job, laomao@yunbi
hope more exchanges begin to vote
it's more better than no exchange vote, but suddenly one of them begin to vote and destroy the network.
-
Seeing 60m bts voting for zero witnesses does not inspire me with confidence in the knowledge or commitment of those voting. If you have bts at yunbi, be aware.
I'm withdrawing mine. Can't use Yunbi anymore, i guess. Too bad.
BTC38 has 500 million BTS now
-
Seeing 60m bts voting for zero witnesses does not inspire me with confidence in the knowledge or commitment of those voting. If you have bts at yunbi, be aware.
I'm withdrawing mine. Can't use Yunbi anymore, i guess. Too bad.
BTC38 has 500 million BTS now
I'm glad to see the BTS is no more a toy of a few people on this forum.
-
Seeing 60m bts voting for zero witnesses does not inspire me with confidence in the knowledge or commitment of those voting. If you have bts at yunbi, be aware.
I'm withdrawing mine. Can't use Yunbi anymore, i guess. Too bad.
BTC38 has 500 million BTS now
so the right way is ask more people to trade in yunbi, LOL
-
Seeing 60m bts voting for zero witnesses does not inspire me with confidence in the knowledge or commitment of those voting. If you have bts at yunbi, be aware.
I'm withdrawing mine. Can't use Yunbi anymore, i guess. Too bad.
yeah, exchanges can barely follow developments of coins, how do you expect them to know our politics.
-
Seeing 60m bts voting for zero witnesses does not inspire me with confidence in the knowledge or commitment of those voting. If you have bts at yunbi, be aware.
I'm withdrawing mine. Can't use Yunbi anymore, i guess. Too bad.
yeah, exchanges can barely follow developments of coins, how do you expect them to know our politics.
I informed them of *my politics a week ago. I don't speak for anyone else.
-
Seeing 60m bts voting for zero witnesses does not inspire me with confidence in the knowledge or commitment of those voting. If you have bts at yunbi, be aware.
I'm withdrawing mine. Can't use Yunbi anymore, i guess. Too bad.
yeah, exchanges can barely follow developments of coins, how do you expect them to know our politics.
They don't need to know our politics. They just need someone who they can assign proxy vote to as the OP has been actively encouraging them to do. For those attempting to convince them to do this, I don't know what they might be offering in return.. promises of their followers trading only on their platform perhaps?
For the ones getting those proxy votes.. it means absolute power to make BTS truly their play thing. As for the exchange.. they got their backdoor deal and they can continue to claim plausible deniability on any damage that follows via the proxy.
This falls under Scenario #2 as I stated earlier.
-
I don't think this is the end of the world by any means.
I don't think I'll use yunbi anymore, but I was not a regular customer so they won't be missing much.
Trying to get three entities to control the majority of voting in the name of decentralisation is rather silly.
This is seeming more and more like an attempted coup. Please inform me if I've misread this.
How did you get so disenfranchised? what do you hope to accomplish?
I'm glad that clayop is back in the committee. It's too bad that we lost two witnesses in the process.
-
all the scenarios are imagined by you, I can also imagine that BM and you conspire to exploit all the shareholders, but I wouldn't.
at least half of the committee members support me to do so, don't think you can represent the interest of BTS community, even BM said he will just give help.
yes, BM and exchange are different, BM are so good at the design of the system infrastructure, but he may be not so good at understanding some business, and his own interest can also conflict with the interest of the whole shareholders. Giving any entity too much power will be bad, including BM.
as a committee member, my idea is to make a balance on the committee, so need to introduce more voting powers, maybe also need to refine the rule. all these is to avoid the committee be under any single entity's control.
I haven't began asking big dogs, I just invited a little dog to come out to let everyone know him, otherwise no changes are possible, I'll help the system to grow for the coming of big dogs.
don't worry.
The committee members (primarily puppies) have been working on measures through the weekend to protect Bitshares against scenarios of bad proposals being passed. We finally did a test today that at the time did not have clayop voted in (congrates btw!)... it got support from every committee member except one.
but without the one, would you think about to prepare this measure?
without the one, would clayop be voted in?
I am at Shanghai blockchain hackthon the last weekend, no time to discuss in telegram, on the other side, I am not so good at technical things, should these be blamed?
-
all the scenarios are imagined by you, I can also imagine that BM and you conspire to exploit all the shareholders, but I wouldn't.
at least half of the committee members support me to do so, don't think you can represent the interest of BTS community, even BM said he will just give help.
yes, BM and exchange are different, BM are so good at the design of the system infrastructure, but he may be not so good at understanding some business, and his own interest can also conflict with the interest of the whole shareholders. Giving any entity too much power will be bad, including BM.
as a committee member, my idea is to make a balance on the committee, so need to introduce more voting powers, maybe also need to refine the rule. all these is to avoid the committee be under any single entity's control.
I haven't began asking big dogs, I just invited a little dog to come out to let everyone know him, otherwise no changes are possible, I'll help the system to grow for the coming of big dogs.
don't worry.
The committee members (primarily puppies) have been working on measures through the weekend to protect Bitshares against scenarios of bad proposals being passed. We finally did a test today that at the time did not have clayop voted in (congrates btw!)... it got support from every committee member except one.
but without the one, would you think about to prepare this measure?
without the one, would clayop be voted in?
I am at Shanghai blockchain hackthon the last weekend, no time to discuss in telegram, on the other side, I am not so good at technical things, should these be blamed?
There was still 5 hours to spare to get your votes in while you were busy posting in forums here. If you can post in forums, you telegram any questions you have or vote. You choose not to support the protection measure. Proof is in the blockchain. There is still more that needs to be done.
-
Haven't BM ever used the community-fund bts to vote for himself？
some people are just double standard，funny. 8)
-
all the scenarios are imagined by you, I can also imagine that BM and you conspire to exploit all the shareholders, but I wouldn't.
at least half of the committee members support me to do so, don't think you can represent the interest of BTS community, even BM said he will just give help.
yes, BM and exchange are different, BM are so good at the design of the system infrastructure, but he may be not so good at understanding some business, and his own interest can also conflict with the interest of the whole shareholders. Giving any entity too much power will be bad, including BM.
as a committee member, my idea is to make a balance on the committee, so need to introduce more voting powers, maybe also need to refine the rule. all these is to avoid the committee be under any single entity's control.
I haven't began asking big dogs, I just invited a little dog to come out to let everyone know him, otherwise no changes are possible, I'll help the system to grow for the coming of big dogs.
don't worry.
The committee members (primarily puppies) have been working on measures through the weekend to protect Bitshares against scenarios of bad proposals being passed. We finally did a test today that at the time did not have clayop voted in (congrates btw!)... it got support from every committee member except one.
but without the one, would you think about to prepare this measure?
without the one, would clayop be voted in?
I am at Shanghai blockchain hackthon the last weekend, no time to discuss in telegram, on the other side, I am not so good at technical things, should these be blamed?
There was still 5 hours to spare to get your votes in while you were busy posting in forums here. If you can post in forums, you telegram any questions you have or vote. You choose not to support the protection measure. Proof is in the blockchain. There is still more that needs to be done.
come on, it's already proved, don't know why you still push him for approval
why don't you ask Bytemaster for this?
Current Approval Weight 19,356 51.3%
-
all the scenarios are imagined by you, I can also imagine that BM and you conspire to exploit all the shareholders, but I wouldn't.
at least half of the committee members support me to do so, don't think you can represent the interest of BTS community, even BM said he will just give help.
yes, BM and exchange are different, BM are so good at the design of the system infrastructure, but he may be not so good at understanding some business, and his own interest can also conflict with the interest of the whole shareholders. Giving any entity too much power will be bad, including BM.
as a committee member, my idea is to make a balance on the committee, so need to introduce more voting powers, maybe also need to refine the rule. all these is to avoid the committee be under any single entity's control.
I haven't began asking big dogs, I just invited a little dog to come out to let everyone know him, otherwise no changes are possible, I'll help the system to grow for the coming of big dogs.
don't worry.
The committee members (primarily puppies) have been working on measures through the weekend to protect Bitshares against scenarios of bad proposals being passed. We finally did a test today that at the time did not have clayop voted in (congrates btw!)... it got support from every committee member except one.
but without the one, would you think about to prepare this measure?
without the one, would clayop be voted in?
I am at Shanghai blockchain hackthon the last weekend, no time to discuss in telegram, on the other side, I am not so good at technical things, should these be blamed?
There was still 5 hours to spare to get your votes in while you were busy posting in forums here. If you can post in forums, you telegram any questions you have or vote. You choose not to support the protection measure. Proof is in the blockchain. There is still more that needs to be done.
come on, it's already proved, don't know why you still push him for approval
why don't you ask Bytemaster for this?
Current Approval Weight 19,356 51.3%
not sure what you're trying to proof here. BM is a large stakeholder and has the right to vote with his (+proxy) stake
-
+5% +5% +5% +5% +5%
Technically it's dangerous for the system that one can vote for more than 1/2 of committee members
you are definitely right, vote for more than 1/2 committee, that's a super bomb. hope BTC38 never be hacked
@Bytemаsteг
-
Earlier or later we'll have to face this. Imo it's better earlier than later.
Rather than complaining, I'd like to think more on how to prevent the top N worst scenarios from happening.
Improve the rules from the code, not from asking someone to do something or not to do something.
What are the worst scenarios?
* A whale votes badly (perhaps by accidentally)
* A whale's account is compromised, votes badly
* A whale distribute her stake among several accounts, votes badly
* A group of whales vote badly
* A whale lend her stake to someone else, asked for no change of votes, but the borrower changed the votes, badly.
* A "bad" witness or a group of "bad" witnesses is/are voted in
How to prevent them? Some ideas here, but may be wrong.
* One stake can only vote for one committee member
* Any witness with votes higher than 10% of total stake supply are considered "voted in" (in addition need to think what will happen if too many are voted in and how to deal with it)
* When voting, one must vote for at least 5 witnesses, no more than 100 witnesses, otherwise the vote is considered invalid.
* When voting, desired_witness_number = size_of(the voted list of witnesses)*2+1, or say, if you vote for 10 witnesses, you agree that you want there are 21 witnesses in total
* standby witnesses should be allowed to produce blocks in some cases, for example some "active" witnesses are detected offline, a detected offline witness must prove that it's online so that it's permitted to produce block again.
It's too bad that we lost two witnesses in the process.
It means our remaining active witnesses have to work harder.
-
There was still 5 hours to spare to get your votes in while you were busy posting in forums here. If you can post in forums, you telegram any questions you have or vote. You choose not to support the protection measure. Proof is in the blockchain. There is still more that needs to be done.
actually when I try to approve I have some trouble in my cli_wallet, and I saw there are more than 51% support, then I switch to do some other things, if you explain this as I do not support the protection measure, up to you.
-
I don't think this is the end of the world by any means.
I don't think I'll use yunbi anymore, but I was not a regular customer so they won't be missing much.
Trying to get three entities to control the majority of voting in the name of decentralisation is rather silly.
This is seeming more and more like an attempted coup. Please inform me if I've misread this.
How did you get so disenfranchised? what do you hope to accomplish?
I'm glad that clayop is back in the committee. It's too bad that we lost two witnesses in the process.
sorry for having not totally understood the voting rule, have communicated with yunbi and now the witnesses number has grown to 27.
what I accomplished now is to get clayop and bhuz back, even only this still worth me to spend so much time to communicate with yunbi. it's not a normal status for 5 inits accounts to stay in the committee, if no one can change that, let me push the move.
-
What if there were 2 core tokens: BTS and BTSVOTE. BTSVOTE would be sharedropped 1:1 onto BTS, and then freely tradeable on the DEX. This would allow exchanges to sell their votes to someone who values voting, for cash in their pocket.
-
What if there were 2 core tokens: BTS and BTSVOTE. BTSVOTE would be sharedropped 1:1 onto BTS, and then freely tradeable on the DEX. This would allow exchanges to sell their votes to someone who values voting, for cash in their pocket.
That would allow people to attack bts for even less resources. How many would sell this btsvote for any profit they could get.
I don't think this is the end of the world by any means.
I don't think I'll use yunbi anymore, but I was not a regular customer so they won't be missing much.
Trying to get three entities to control the majority of voting in the name of decentralisation is rather silly.
This is seeming more and more like an attempted coup. Please inform me if I've misread this.
How did you get so disenfranchised? what do you hope to accomplish?
I'm glad that clayop is back in the committee. It's too bad that we lost two witnesses in the process.
sorry for having not totally understood the voting rule, have communicated with yunbi and now the witnesses number has grown to 27.
what I accomplished now is to get clayop and bhuz back, even only this still worth me to spend so much time to communicate with yunbi. it's not a normal status for 5 inits accounts to stay in the committee, if no one can change that, let me push the move.
I appreciate the honesty, and I appreciate that you got clayop and bhuz back in the active committee.
-
That's too complicated for a common Joe. Thus not a good idea for voting. Voting should be simple to understand.