Well... the main reason that led me to bring this up... I have been debating a lot of Bitcoin/Altcoin people as to the merits of DPoS versus PoW. I am telling a half truth when I tell them that someone needs to obtain 51% of the money supply to attack the network... due to voter apathy that is not the case. It is not only a security issue, it is a public perception issue of a possible security issue. If someone really advertised that instead you only need 14% of the money supply due to voter apathy, I think people will think more negatively of DPoS. How can we expect people to trust DPoS if it isn't as secure as it can theoretically be? IT doesn't look good in a debate when someone brings up that only 14% of the money supply is needed... they give me a hard enough time about 51% being bad enough.

an extremely important point. This has been gnawing at me for some time now. I keep seeing these topics on delegates and voting recurring and yet no significant changes are proposed by the devs to address this. The last major change was with the creation of delegate slates months ago.

coinhoarder & oldman (among others) have made some excellent points. We really need to solve the problem of apathy, and imo we need to look at incentives (and disincentives). Oldman's point about responsibility is spot on imo. Several of the suggestions made here would be better than what we now have. We need to get bm, toast or other devs involved in this and work out a plan to address this problem ASAP.

It's the same thing with our govt. It works good enough for me so I don't waste my time with it. If they ever really start effing up I'll take some time to exercise my right to vote to change things. This is going to end up a lot like that and it's o.k. It is a better system because it is sooooo easy for people to vote when they want.

If you're actually a teenager I can understand why you think this way. You're a product of govt. influence on society which promotes apathy & irresponsibility. You're conditioned to think "govt. will take care of me" or "let the govt. pay for it". Govt. is force. Is that what you want? Your believe that voting can actually change things at the state & national level ignores the decades of evidence to the contrary that preceded your birth. Your thinking is seriously flawed and I couldn't disagree with you more deeply than I do.

Quote from: OldMan on November 14, 2014, 09:07:33 pm

Do BTS shareholders have a right to yield if they cannot be bothered to vote?

I wasn't aware BTS earns yield, I thought that was just on bitassets?  Bitasset holders definitely don't need to vote.

I'm not in favour of punishing with fines people for not voting.  BTS holders just need to be able to be able to easily vote someone out if they are attacking the network and have the rest automated as much as possible.  I don't know why delegates can't just be ranked algorithmically with using the fields on bitsharesblocks.com/delegates such as

 - feed frequency
 - number of active feeds
 - reliability
 - frequency of updates
 - time running as delegate (they'd become more trusted over time, would be a v important factor to make attacks more expensive)

There could be an algorithmically produced top 101 slate which could be auto-voted on (i.e. not voted on) and give its effect a weighting of say 50/50 vs the active votes of the BTS holders.  So if there is 15% active stake, the algorithmically defined stake gets 15% voting power automatically taken from the inactive stake, doubling the active stake (while decreasing the voters power by half).  Let an algorithm take some of the load. 

Or at the very least an algorithm could serve as a back up, so that if the active stake falls below a certain level, the algorithm could step in and do the voting on the BTS holders' behalf.  The only way to trick the algorithm would be to run a fleet of very reliable delegates for a long period.... which might end up being cheaper than just buying up the BTS... not sure.

Luckybit & I have been talking about bots & automation to help with this problem, so I agree with you on that. The metrics for delegates outside the 101 need to be determined. As svk pointed out the data and metrics for standby delegates cannot be exactly the same. Where I disagree with you is regarding the need for incentives, which encompasses disincentives. If I understood fuzzy's perspective, (a form of direct pay for people to vote) I have to disagree. Too much possibility for abuse and bribery. I very much like the 10x transaction fee penalty or options similar to that as a negative incentive.

How to incentivize becoming informed is definitely a tough nut to crack, but the closest to it would probably be related to Pheonike's idea of issue based voting. If we can couple what people are interested in or passionate about to a delegate or voting slate, and make it easy to them to see that connection and to vote, that may be the best we can do.

There are some really viable options being voiced here that will improve DPoS and I'm hoping to see some action taken by the devs before the green light is given to the marketing push.

No, I would never take out a loan for an investment, no matter how good it may seem.

But yes, I think this is a good moment to buy, if your not planning on selling tomorrow.

 

One can easily read between the lines...
Assuming they are working with...
After racking my head about what would motivate them to give back all of the PTS this is the clear open and shut case.  It is also clear that if this is the reason, those who gave PTS would clearly support rescinding the donation.   I could be completely wrong. 
This theory...

Mr. ghost, your analysis looks thorough and your theory seem quite reasonable. If it is true did they need to post this thread at all? I don't think so. In doing so they ran the risk of injecting speculation and uncertainty into the community, at least with the ambiguous manor they posted. As I stated earlier, there are better ways to inform the PTS donators of the refund, if that was even necessary (it probably was, even if only for courtesy).

And what harm would there be to disclose the reasons, if your theory is correct?

They could have disclosed the refund in another thread, still public, still on this forum but in a less visible location. It's just not a good example of wisdom imo, and I couple it with the lack of wisdom used with the merger post. I would like to see them get wiser, but my confidence in this area is still weak. I'm not seeing the vetting / scrutiny of potential problematic posts we were promised last month in the wake of the merger announcement.

I do have hope however, as I still trust in the principles they have publicly stated on many occasions.

I generally agree with you Stan, but in the face of last October's foopa of BM's merger post that set the community on edge and generally made a mess, your request to simply "have faith" in your posts here is like asking people to shut off their brain and stop thinking.

You would be wise to note the negative comments here and discard those that are simply nay saying FUD and those which are expressing a genuine concern for your continued style of communication that harkens back to October.

Think unity not division. If you can't see any division going on here in this thread then you haven't truly understood the danger of making ambiguous posts in the community.

I trust I3's technical skills and leadership in general, but not so much in PR and marketing. This doesn't help to strengthen my confidence.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your PTS refund, only asking why and why this way. But it seems my point is being ignored and my expression is falling on deaf ears.

I don't want to be identified with the nay sayers and FUD slingers, I'm not in their camp. But I will not sit silent and "go with the flow" when I see something that troubles me or I believe is contrary to helping with our joint mission here. I'm an ally not an adversary and I've made my case. If you choose to ignore it that's your choice, but it doesn't help your mission to alienate people when there's no good reason to.

I was listening to this podcast and it touched me and moved me to post a link to it for your consideration.

The thrust of the message I want to convey can be found at time index 38:21 which you can position to by clicking on the progress bar once enough of the podcast is read & cached.

I know BM is on the same page (tho maybe a different paragraph) given what he has posted elsewhere about his desire to end violence.

http://www.fdrpodcasts.com/#/2838/the-truth-about-world-war-i-the-hidden-history

Quote from: Whatsgoingon on November 13, 2014, 12:15:20 pm

Unsurprisingly neither Dan nor Stan have yet given a plausible reason for this decision. Besides the obligatory memes they have yet failed to address suspicion.
You make a business decision that reeks of covering up fraud and decide to better not address the circumstances, but post funny pictures of cartoon characters instead?

Yet the brainwashed plus 5ers are content with the notion of 'free money'.

Really, this is ridiculous. Nobody in this community questions anything at all, although suspicious decisions seem to basically be the backbone of Invictus' business plan.

There are a dozen good reasons and few downsides. 

Perhaps you can make an argument on why we shouldn't.

This a lame proposition. YOU should be the one to explain yourself BM, you made the claim.

AND WHY THE FUCK ONE CAN'T a n y o n e ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF UNITING / DIVIDING THE COMMUNITY WITH POSTS LIKE THIS???

Look, I'm a strong advocate of I3 / BM / Stan, but they have said NOTHING here that instills my confidence they know what they're doing in posting nebulous stuff like the OP. It DOES NOT serve the community at large.

If it was necessary to disclose to PTS owners I3 was going to gift them their contributions back, there are far better ways to do than this. If I were a PTS holder I might even see a case for them disrespecting my donation by returning it.

STOP THE VAUGE COMMUNICATION TO YOUR SUPPORTERS!

Really, this is ridiculous. Nobody in this community questions anything at all...

I agree with your first sentence, your post is ridiculous. Obviously you haven't been reading this thread much.

I prefer to see it directly from I3, rather than through others' guesswork. Stan more or less confirmed what you said gamey but not in a direct way, and I fail to see why it wasn't stated more clearly in the OP.

I've made my point here, but I'll say it one last time: How does the manor of this communication help the community? It seems to me BM & Stan haven't yet learned their lesson about how not to stimulate a negative response through forum posts.