4606
General Discussion / Re: BitAsset market is going into chaos
« on: November 14, 2014, 08:43:36 am »
Interesting.
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.
Much better memory alloc compare to previous version and it synced with no hassle.Agree.
What we need is a script that will burn fees daily that we can verify.To be honest if one hasn't prove himself yet, I won't vote on him..
I feel like I asked this question before but... can we verify burned funds yet ?
This still has problems, the main one being there are not enough people willing to watch everyone.. but the verifiable burning ability needs to be in place first.
This way I could #1 create a delegate at 100%. #2 when elected I just burn all funds or maybe 99%. Whatever. #3 When we know what has most value, I can stop burning and provide accountability towards that goal (instead of accountability of burning).
1,2,3.... what am I missing. Too many control freaks though. Too many managers with expectations too high.
Bad idea? Good idea?
vato_ created a delegate report over here:Good. It would be better if we have more info about the candidates. When we vote we do not just look at top 101.
http://kettenblog.wordpress.com/101-delegates/
there's a table which states how has several delegates IIRC
This make sense.My preferred solution for delegates:I agree with this. though...
1) They are trusted and able to maintain the network
2) They publish a budget on who they plan to fund and generally don't do work themselves.
3) They coordinate with other delegates.
If the role of delegates is to manage up to 1% of the spendable budget then we can hire many delegates. Lets keep it really simple, if you don't know how to run a node ask for funding from a delegate that does run a node. If the delegate thinks it is worth while and won't cause him to lose his spot then he can support you.
Thus at the end of the day you only have to trust that a delegate can make wise evaluations about the performance of the real workers while maintaining a node.
I think this begs for variable pay rates or perhaps multi-sig delegate pay over 3%? Or do you see delegates just haveing multiple sub accounts. 100%/80%/50%/25%/3% ... or just a 100% and a 3% and a promise to burn. Or just a 100% and a promise to burn.
What i fear is a delegate gets 100% pay for some project. Its completed, but the pay remains. Rather than lose his spot, the delegate feverishly searches for somewhere else to spend the cash. Fills up his project board with candidates etc. (Its surely easier to keep 100% pay once you've got it, and usually leads to waste/inefficiencies) Or do you campaign again to have your 3% delegate re-elected. ... or promise to burn the 97%(multisig could force burn)
voter apathy should default to base 3% pay, not full 100% pay based on prior projects.
I agree with you that we need to consider decentralization..Employee or big contributors really don't need to maintain the delegate themselves, because bitsuperlab provides such hosting service.but we need to ensure that we have > 30 (prefereably alot more) businesses running the delegates as a service.
Besides, I support the opinion that we should set a variable payrate/block reward for delegate, according to the market cap.
else this will lead back to centralization ..
Employee or big contributors really don't need to maintain the delegate themselves, because bitsuperlab provides such hosting service.
Besides, I support the opinion that we should set a variable payrate/block reward for delegate, according to the market cap.
是不是991700区块到达前出新钱包啊 老钱包不怎么好用 每次打开都要卡死2 3次只看到说解决了一个内存泄露问题,可能会好用一点.