Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - amencon

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ... 16
91
General Discussion / Re: Quaterly Delegate Voting
« on: October 14, 2014, 06:48:19 pm »
Quote from: Pheonike on October 14, 2014, 06:19:13 pm

If delegates don't feel it's worth there while to participate then that just becomes another criteria for whether someone should vote for them or not.  I think the ones who take the time too will benefit from the exposure. At a certain point I believe poor performance delegates will voted out regardless so the competition will be between the delegates who go the extra mile and provide information like this.
Yeah that's true.  I'm on board with the idea regardless of how much it gets used by voters in the short term.  Now the question is how do we collaborate to come up with a standard for this? 

I think something relatively simple should work fine as discussed, some basic "Bitsharesblocks" metrics, a few fields for input from delegates and maybe a spot for delegates to submit transactions showing usage of pay funds for various uses.

The trick will be to get someone to build a site that let's delegates register, pulls up their stats, polls them for the user defined data and let's them submit transactions with notes plus whatever else is deemed desirable for this.

If svk had an API I could poll on bitsharesblocks.com I could do it in .NET fairly easily I think, I could probably figure out running a local client on the web server and getting the data using RPC calls but that would definitely take more time.  If nobody else jumps on this in the next few weeks or more and I can finish up some other side projects I'm working on I'll definitely give it a shot.

92
General Discussion / Re: Quaterly Delegate Voting
« on: October 14, 2014, 06:12:44 pm »
I like this idea and as a delegate would be willing to participate in it. 

Quarterly performance reports make sense, though I think they will work better when there is more competition to become a delegate.  Assuming there were lots of viable standbys to vote in and there was lucrative potential in becoming a delegate, as a voter I would love to see voluntary quarterly performance reports from delegates to help direct where to vote.  That way those that didn't bother would run the risk of being voted out and thereby be incentivized to participate as well.

While I support getting something like this setup now, I don't think it will be utilized much currently.  I think publishing feeds is a more critical role for a delegate than volunteering a performance report, and yet there is a good chunk of delegates with no price feeds that don't seem to be motivating much corrective action from voters in general.

93
KeyID / Re: Observation about DNS stake
« on: October 14, 2014, 07:37:47 am »
Hmm thanks for this call to action.  I recently imported funds but went to bed and forgot to vote with my (meager) stake.  I'll do so now and hopefully others with much larger stakes will do the same.

94
General Discussion / Re: Open Bazaar
« on: October 14, 2014, 07:29:02 am »
I think a "Bitshares Market" DAC is an excellent idea.  If you can build some buzz and a growing network around a DAC like that you get users that transact often.  With something like Bitcoin you end up with lots of adopters buying the coin and sitting on it.  With a market DAC people involved will be selling and buying and each way that means transaction fees.  Even with fees much lower than eBay I think you could have a very well funded DAC even with moderate success in getting merchants to adopt it as a place to conduct their business.

95
KeyID / Re: Getting started with KeyID / importing wallets
« on: October 14, 2014, 04:16:45 am »
Quote from: Gonzo on October 14, 2014, 01:51:44 am
Is the import priv key area working?  After importing two priv keys my client is not showing any genesis credit...
Yes it allowed me to import for both Bitcoin and PTS.

96
General Discussion / Re: publish feed price automatic(From BitSuperLab)
« on: October 13, 2014, 07:09:59 am »
Quote from: xeroc on October 13, 2014, 06:57:32 am
Quote from: kokojie on October 13, 2014, 12:28:07 am
I'm using alt's script with default settings, why do I see other people have 50+ price update per day, and mine is only like 3-4 times  day?
depends on how often you run the script .. and in the config there is a parameter called
Code: [Select]
"common2": "update the feed price at least 23.5 hours a time",
"max_update_hours": 23.5,
Yep you can also set the min and max change required to trigger an update there as well which will definitely effect how often your feeds update each day.

97
General Discussion / Re: 5% Annual inactivity fee applied to unclaimed stake?
« on: October 13, 2014, 04:41:37 am »
Personally i don't like it.  I think people should be able to sock money away without being taxed for it.  However I like the dilution idea even less, at least with an inactivity fee you can avoid being taxed if desired where dilution essentially taxes everyone.

If it's determined that more funding is absolutely necessary and either inactivity fees OR a dilution scheme would fund that need fully then I'd be happier with the inactivity fee.

98
General Discussion / Re: Expanding the Role of Delegates
« on: October 11, 2014, 10:55:36 pm »
Quote from: gamey on October 11, 2014, 10:25:48 pm
Quote from: amencon on October 09, 2014, 05:41:48 pm
I have no problem communicating with other delegates (even going for a beer if the situation permits it as xeroc stated), I also think some level of organization between delegates is OK as long as there isn't collusion among them.

Unfortunately I think the biggest problem has nothing to do with delegates and their role but getting the stakeholders interested in directing the management of BTSX.

I've created multiple threads requesting ideas for what people would like to see from their delegates with 0 responses.  We have multiple delegates voted in that don't even update price feeds at all.  There doesn't seem to be much interest from people in giving direction to delegates.

The point of a delegate system is to put the power in the hands of the systems stakeholders.  Now it appears the real trick is getting the stakeholders to actually give a shit.

What would be the stated goal or benefit of creating a "cohesive management structure" among delegates?  Not saying it's a bad idea but I'm coming up blank as far as it's potential benefit to BitsharesX unless it's a structure that can gain the involvement of the systems' users.

This sounds like perhaps the transaction fees should be increased so that the market for delegates is more competitive.

There is definitely a tradeoff.  Some delegates need to remain anonymous and not communicate in normal channels.  Others could work together to provide benefit for the community.
Good point about making competition worth it.  Hopefully it's a short term problem that will fix itself with a great increasing of value for the BitsharesX system.  Perhaps if more money was collected by delegates they would be able to make a larger difference without resorting to organizing among themselves, also perhaps with more money and adoption would come a greater number of vested users incentivized to participate in the delegate voting process.

One problem I see though is if adoption doesn't come, then your solution might become necessary, however increasing fees seems like a bad idea for a system that is already struggling with gaining adoption, kind of a catch 22 possibly.

99
General Discussion / Re: Expanding the Role of Delegates
« on: October 10, 2014, 12:46:01 am »
Quote from: emski on October 09, 2014, 10:10:07 pm
Quote from: amencon on October 09, 2014, 09:21:18 pm
Just to be clear you're talking about something completely separate from this threads OP right?  Creating a new type of delegate and organizing the current delegates into some sort of foundation seem like two very different topics.

Same topic. Different idea. Similar threads linked.
Hmm OK I think I see.

I'm assume with organizing current delegates you could build a foundation of sorts, then have a delegate propose say a plan to implement a marketing strategy and organize the collection of funds from the pay of multiple delegates through this collective. 

Thinking about it a bit more I find pooling delegate funds for larger initiatives problematic in that there doesn't seem to be a way with the current system to transparently see where the funds for each delegate go.  Even if voters could vote out delegates that propose plans they don't like that they get funded by other delegates, it would be better if they could vote out everyone involved in the scheme.  By having each delegate campaign separately it makes it easier for voters to see how well each delegate is performing based on their own stated goals that got them elected to the top 101 in the first place.

Then again, for now it appears users seem to be fine letting delegates do whatever they want for the most part.  A delegate organization would probably function fine and in light of current stakeholder voter apathy might even get more done but I don't think it would serve in the spirit of what the delegates meant to represent when DPOS was designed.

Maybe what people want is for their delegates to communicate amongst themselves and come up with their own best strategies to utilize delegate funds to help build up BitsharesX, rather than be bothered with having to get involved themselves.  Will be interesting to get more perspectives on the subject from others.

100
General Discussion / Re: Expanding the Role of Delegates
« on: October 09, 2014, 09:21:18 pm »
Quote from: emski on October 09, 2014, 06:47:36 pm
Quote from: roadkill on October 09, 2014, 06:11:15 pm
Quote from: xeroc on October 09, 2014, 03:33:36 pm
My thinking was that we might need to form groups of people that stand behind
ONE delegate and supports several works (from the technical as well as
political and management regimes).

If delegates can be said to serve a political role, I'd prefer they have beers with the users they run for :)

Delegates (these who support the network signing blocks) should be neutral. No politics. No strings attached. They just support the "infrastructure". They are simply low level workers. There should be another entity (for now called "business delegate"/"business proposal"/"worker?"/"CEO"/"Board of directors") that should have other functions like governing, marketing, decision making and so on. All of them should be chosen by the shareholders.
Just to be clear you're talking about something completely separate from this threads OP right?  Creating a new type of delegate and organizing the current delegates into some sort of foundation seem like two very different topics.

101
General Discussion / Re: Expanding the Role of Delegates
« on: October 09, 2014, 05:41:48 pm »
I have no problem communicating with other delegates (even going for a beer if the situation permits it as xeroc stated), I also think some level of organization between delegates is OK as long as there isn't collusion among them.

Unfortunately I think the biggest problem has nothing to do with delegates and their role but getting the stakeholders interested in directing the management of BTSX.

I've created multiple threads requesting ideas for what people would like to see from their delegates with 0 responses.  We have multiple delegates voted in that don't even update price feeds at all.  There doesn't seem to be much interest from people in giving direction to delegates.

The point of a delegate system is to put the power in the hands of the systems stakeholders.  Now it appears the real trick is getting the stakeholders to actually give a shit.

What would be the stated goal or benefit of creating a "cohesive management structure" among delegates?  Not saying it's a bad idea but I'm coming up blank as far as it's potential benefit to BitsharesX unless it's a structure that can gain the involvement of the systems' users.

102
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: ===Introduce our delegate tearm ---Out of Control===
« on: September 30, 2014, 10:08:33 pm »
Quote from: xeroc on September 30, 2014, 10:00:23 pm
Currently .. mine are publishing accordint to BMs price rulea but at least when the feeds are older than 45 minutes .. unfortunatelly .. it seems i am way ahead of others .. you can see the rate /24h in bitsharesblocks.com

Further, some have a payrate way below 100%
Yeah I've been tweaking my script also.  A day or 2 ago I was at something like 110 feed updates a day hah.  Turns out I was losing money at that rate so I've made some changes, now I might have gone a bit too far down, going to wait for a bit longer and see before I make another change.

103
General Discussion / Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
« on: September 30, 2014, 09:03:11 pm »
Quote from: bytemaster on September 30, 2014, 08:40:47 pm
This wouldn't be a DAC... it would be a standardized protocol that utilizes BTSX.  The routers would be "vending machines" not part of a DAC.
Hmm I went back and re-read the OP more closely and see what you mean.  So each node utilizing the yet to be built protocol would use it to communicate with the BitsharesX DAC and register on the chain to move value between other nodes which do the same?

I suppose it would be an even better situation since BTSX has value outside of micro-payments to mesh networking nodes and wouldn't rely on mesh networks to thrive before being a viable way to exchange value for connection services.

104
General Discussion / Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
« on: September 30, 2014, 08:39:08 pm »
This would be a very exciting DAC to see built.  The trouble will be finding areas where adoption is concentrated enough to make it truly useful.

With a currency DAC it have value even if the network is comprised of 2 users halfway across the globe from each other, for this you'd need areas of dozens or more users in close geographical proximity.

Despite that I'd be thrilled to see someone take on the challenge and would absolutely contribute by being a node in my area.

105
General Discussion / Re: Bitsapphire working on a general purpose bitAsset wallet [designs inside]
« on: September 30, 2014, 08:25:26 pm »
Quote from: bitsapphire on September 30, 2014, 05:36:36 pm
Quote from: amencon on September 30, 2014, 03:34:27 am
Quote from: bitsapphire on September 27, 2014, 06:46:38 pm
Quote from: mf-tzo on September 27, 2014, 06:37:24 pm
That looks very nice!!

Will we be able to claim securely shares from 3rd party DACs that honor PTS-AGS using this wallet or I am again out of topic?

The wallet is not intended for this purpose (though it could be used it PTS gets converted to DPOS). This is simply a wallet designed specifically for the general population. The wallet can be used and adapted freely by any DAC project out there.
Looks really good.

Am I understanding correctly then that this is an open source front-end design that can be easily integrated with any DAC using the Bitshares toolkit on the back end?

Meaning a new DAC developer could clone the Bitshares toolkit and tweak as necessary and then create a site using this and have a DAC with a web GUI using very little relative development time?

That's the idea, yes. Though the first release will be a complete wallet plus some general purpose frontend stuff which any DAC developer can use to build their custom frontend.
That's definitely a big contribution to the ecosystem then.  Nicely done and good luck with continued development on it.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ... 16

Page created in 0.026 seconds with 23 queries.