for btc38

@r0ach have you ever thought that even "collateral bid" is not more secure if the attack is organized from very wealthie/rich witnesses? (like Goldman Sachs or Soros )
I mean a entity  for example that owns $1billion  dollars in "savings", could easily damage the  bts block-chain ...
In our eyes we would assume that they have much to loose compared with the "poor" witnesses when in reality their "big" stake  on bts would be like nothing compared with their overall wealth (less than 1%).... So in reality they have nothing to loose compared with a "poor" witness that has for example at stake  $10.000 from a total of $50.000.... Which one will secure the network better? Which one looses more?  On this example obvious the "poor" witness will probably secure it better....Not?

Quote from: bytemaster on September 24, 2015, 10:33:51 pm

Quote from: liondani on September 24, 2015, 10:25:42 pm

Quote from: r0ach on September 24, 2015, 10:03:59 pm

The problem with a high number is voter apathy, so like  i said, becoming a delegate should require you to submit a collateral bid, then the client is set to automatically vote for the highest 101 collateral bids unless you choose to manually vote.

 

Is nobody paying attention here?
r0ach makes one of the best suggestions/proposals I have heard lately!
We should evaluate them seriously.


PS I agree with the PR nightmare known as 17 delegates
PS2 PR was never his "big thing" 

Not a bad idea... but it is effectively buying your way into power which is less accountable and has different risks.

It's the same security model, you've already bought your way into power by purchasing a bunch of stake to vote with.  I am simply offering users the fastest, most seamless, least time consuming possible way to identify the best game theory candidates to serve them, then letting them do it automated if they desire.

Bitshares will never become anything if you don't understand the following point.  Nobody uses Linux because Linux is a lifestyle, not a utility appliance to provide them benefit.  Nobody will use Bitshares if it's required being a lifestyle to use.  This is the only possible way to avoid Bitshares being a lifestyle.

I have said this several times over but I am guessing people are set in their own perceptions and opinions of what is actually happening in the market so I will say it again for clarify.

Well you could use hard numbers and put them in one place and reference that. Thats what would shut-up guys like me.

It took me quite a long time to come up with this plan, primarily because I identified all the same old things that have been mentioned by gamey regarding coins, miners etc.

This is why the only solution is innovation

I wish I could go into this in my details right now but I am piled on with work atm.

Answering once in concise answers is all you need to do.

Most innovation is going to come from a client that switches GPUs to the most profitable coin. This requires a client-side aspect. Other innovation is that fact you pay out in bitassets?

Bottom line.. initially our first phases does operate with the expectation to attract existing miners.

It would be foolish to think that you'll have phases to bring in *new* miners. All the spergs have been spent. Maybe some kids running GPUs off their parents electrical bill will enter the market.

Following this though, we begin to reach beyond the mining community and then get into expanding into new markets.

What are these "new markets" ? I don't want to come across as a big asshole but your answers serve up more questions from me than they answer.

The only way to do that is to make mining more accessible. Some operations in the past have done this successfully. They attracted miners far beyond the current scope, but operated on a faulty business model and bad management that resulted in their closure.

Which pools? Mining more accessible? What do you mean accessible? It is all cli and tweaking out weird parameters few understand. You think you'll inspire people to enter the mining game in this day and age with your pool? The pool I worked on had a frontend client that polled an API for profitability and could switch between mining software. I'm sure even if it got working, it would have been a lot of work for the miners.

The launch of ethereum has gotten people pulling out their old GPUs again..

Also it was mentioned we don't support sha256.. that's right.. we don't at present.. part of the updates being done right now that these delegates are paying for will include supporting sha256 among other algos that are actually worth working with contrary to the believe. Not all profitably in mining takes place on coinmarketcap. Actually some of the best opportunities often are not there.

I know other algos are worth working on, but in terms of actual mining $$ volume, BTC clobbers them all. In terms of how to make your GPU profitable, all those other algos are needed.

Anyways.. I could go on but the point is.. there is a much bigger market we are expanding into.. and with that I found the possibility to move forward.. otherwise.. I would have folded probably after the 1st month and just shut down the pool.

What is this 'bigger market'? I read your proposal and a lot of the thread, but I missed something.

I have asked this question before and I will ask it again... by not wanting to support all these delegates so we can get the dev done and create a sustainable pool that grows bitshares.. the alternative is just to stop it dead.. shut it down.. and kill all the delegates instantly. Ask yourselves.. will that be of more benefit to bitshares than what this is offering? I think the numbers shout a resounding no.

What numbers? And there is another side, and that is could the $ be spent better otherwise which requires a second set of numbers.

As the delegate dropping out.. that has been happening for days now. It happens everytime Chinese markets open.. what I think it says is that there are Chinese who are opening their wallets now that were not before and are not updating their vote. The trend has been pretty consistent like that.