No matter what the outcome of this debate is, it's great to see such a fact and argument based discussion from both of you, as opposed to the unproductive personal attacks we sometimes see here.

Quote from: delulo on September 02, 2015, 03:59:26 pm

All I am asking for is to be explicit and transparent.

You said it will be a public service. What does that mean? See the more specific questions I asked above again below:
 

Quote

Can you be more clear an explicit about who the referral commissions will go to: You said they will go to miners / they will in the end be added to the bonus payout. Will 100% of the referral commission go to miners? I think the questions in the end is where will profits go when actual profits are made (when it doesn't make any sense to further increase the efficiency of the pool)?

I already answer this here: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,18253.msg233403.html#msg233403

You said this

The benefits go to all the miners who refer through that wallet provider and the wallet provider is using its profits to make up the bonus payouts instead of the delegate pay.

That didn't clear things up for me.

Quote from: delulo on September 02, 2015, 08:59:01 am

Thanks Jonathan for your answer (avoiding to quote it to save some space).

My overall take on delegates is: In my opinion elmato and bitsharesblocks should not receive their delegate pay anymore since there is now the option to make the development of a wallet a profitable business. At the time they were voted in though there was no referral program. Apart form that itis of strategic importance that core developers (svk, not elmato) / cryptonomex stakeholders hold substantial amounts of bitshares to align interests, that is why I wouldnt vote out svk or other core devs (in the end they also make a private profit with cryptonomex....). 

So, this isn't about active or non-active delegates you been on a rampage about. We are at least two months out from the launch of 2.0, what if it takes even a bit longer than that? You are making decisions about positions about something that isn't even here. People are working NOW... bills and costs are involved NOW.. not after 2.0 comes. This is flawed reasoning.

At the time anybody is voted in today.. there is STILL no referral program either. If we follow this reasoning of operating today based on what may or may not come into existence months from now, well then we might as well just close up shop because if we follow that reasoning to the very end.. we should have nothing but 3% delegates in the 101 TODAY regardless of what function a 100% delegate brings to the network. Sorry devs and all others working for the blockchain, you're fired until 2.0. Now get back to work. 

Quote

They had several months of delegate pay to produce results several months later.
We have several delegates now, and producing results next month.

I wouldn't worry if you only had the 7 delegates until next month! But you know how long it takes to vote delegates in AND OUT... Would you step up and ask shareholders to vote out your delegate after that month? If that is an argument you should make that promise explicit.

You are talking about voting them out NOW.. not a month from now. You have stated you are removing your support NOW.. not a month from now. You're reasoning in the previous response was we are living in 2.0 land today. Now you are reasoning that today we are in 1.0 land and getting people voted out is so hard. Which is it? It's easy to reduce a 100% delegate down to 3%. Takes a few key strokes. If the people still like all the volumes, new users, transactions, and market cap we bring and the little 0.1% dilution brings back to BitShares multiples of all that, where is the rub?

Quote

I like to get clarification about something in the logic being used here. If we choose to, I could very well just say "hey, look at all the BTS volume etc we are pumping into BitShares through this. Look at the liquidity we are providing to ALL the BitAssets that are going to help BTS grow... this increases our market cap and improves everything for all shareholders.. put more delegate money into this and we keep going and do more of it. We are hired by the blockchain!" ... It seems only because I have designed an exit strategy to not rely on the delegate forever, you have concluded we should not get it to begin with. It suggests that if we choose not to step up and find a way off the Delegate pay, your conclusion would be to support this because it does in fact benefit all shareholders in a very direct and clear way. Only because I found a path from loss to gain and to save BitShares the cost of dilution, we should somehow suddenly take a losing pool and start pour more of our own money into it be denied any access to delegate funds that, as I already stated, do nothing but benefit BitShares. This is how it comes across. The assumption that my own money hasn't and isn't going into the pools dev and operations is also false.

I'd be on the fence to support 1 or 2 delegates for bts-mining if this there was no private profit in the end. 7 delegates for who knows how long is definitely too much given that there is the superior option is finance it as an entrepreneurial effort.

Quote

The benefits go to all the miners who refer through that wallet provider and the wallet provider is using its profits to make up the bonus payouts instead of the delegate pay.

Can you be more clear an explicit about who the referral commissions will go to: You said they will go to miners / they will in the end be added to the bonus payout. Will 100% of the referral commission go to miners? I think the questions in the end is where will profits go when actual profits are made (when it doesn't make any sense to further increase the efficiency of the pool)?

Say we take this reasoning path and decide you are right.

Kill the pool today, shut it down. Stop all dev, money is all gone.

All delegates are taken offline so you can vote in someone else.

This is essentially what you are arguing for isn't it?

At this stage, I have stated this is a public service. We have no reason to continue to lose money and invest hours everyday other than a desire to keep it going as a benefit to BitShares.

You are arguing that with 2.0 coming, and the opportunities it may or may not afford to the project THEN, we should pull the plug NOW.

Let's follow this reasoning and do just that. Ok.. we are gone. Please give us detailed numbers on how the removal of this project has improved BitShares more than when and what it is providing. This will be the ultimate deciding factor in whatever this arguement you are making really is all about. We have already demonstrated that the amount as it stands now is barely enough, yet provides returns in multiples. So weather its 1-2-7 delegates makes no difference.  Everything else is just dancing around details.

Please provide detailed numbers that demonstrate this position to be superior in order to help voters make transparent and rational decisions in their voting. If you are right, then we need to reverse course right now.

Looking forward to your reply.

All I am asking for is to be explicit and transparent.

You said it will be a public service. What does that mean? See the more specific questions I asked above again below:
 

Can you be more clear an explicit about who the referral commissions will go to: You said they will go to miners / they will in the end be added to the bonus payout. Will 100% of the referral commission go to miners? I think the questions in the end is where will profits go when actual profits are made (when it doesn't make any sense to further increase the efficiency of the pool)?

The other open question is:

I wouldn't worry if you only had the 7 delegates until next month! But you know how long it takes to vote delegates in AND OUT... Would you step up and ask shareholders to vote out your delegate after that month? If that is an argument you should make that promise explicit.

Overall I am just asking to make things as explicit as possible to shareholders can hold you accountable for things etc.

Thanks Jonathan for your answer (avoiding to quote it to save some space).

My overall take on delegates is: In my opinion elmato and bitsharesblocks should not receive their delegate pay anymore since there is now the option to make the development of a wallet a profitable business. At the time they were voted in though there was no referral program. Apart form that itis of strategic importance that core developers (svk, not elmato) / cryptonomex stakeholders hold substantial amounts of bitshares to align interests, that is why I wouldnt vote out svk or other core devs (in the end they also make a private profit with cryptonomex....). 

They had several months of delegate pay to produce results several months later.
We have several delegates now, and producing results next month.

I wouldn't worry if you only had the 7 delegates until next month! But you know how long it takes to vote delegates in AND OUT... Would you step up and ask shareholders to vote out your delegate after that month? If that is an argument you should make that promise explicit.

I like to get clarification about something in the logic being used here. If we choose to, I could very well just say "hey, look at all the BTS volume etc we are pumping into BitShares through this. Look at the liquidity we are providing to ALL the BitAssets that are going to help BTS grow... this increases our market cap and improves everything for all shareholders.. put more delegate money into this and we keep going and do more of it. We are hired by the blockchain!" ... It seems only because I have designed an exit strategy to not rely on the delegate forever, you have concluded we should not get it to begin with. It suggests that if we choose not to step up and find a way off the Delegate pay, your conclusion would be to support this because it does in fact benefit all shareholders in a very direct and clear way. Only because I found a path from loss to gain and to save BitShares the cost of dilution, we should somehow suddenly take a losing pool and start pour more of our own money into it be denied any access to delegate funds that, as I already stated, do nothing but benefit BitShares. This is how it comes across. The assumption that my own money hasn't and isn't going into the pools dev and operations is also false.

I'd be on the fence to support 1 or 2 delegates for bts-mining if this there was no private profit in the end. 7 delegates for who knows how long is definitely too much given that there is the superior option is finance it as an entrepreneurial effort.

The benefits go to all the miners who refer through that wallet provider and the wallet provider is using its profits to make up the bonus payouts instead of the delegate pay.

Can you be more clear an explicit about who the referral commissions will go to: You said they will go to miners / they will in the end be added to the bonus payout. Will 100% of the referral commission go to miners? I think the questions in the end is where will profits go when actual profits are made (when it doesn't make any sense to further increase the efficiency of the pool)?

Before anybody goes nuts over MineBitShares... I did mention a post coming today to talk about updates in the MineBitShares forum area. Pretty underhanded to fire off an attack like this without first seeing that.

It's actually thanks to the recent delegates getting voted in that I decided to get programming work underway. What I had saved up from our delegates that last few months wasn't even enough for the initial deposit to get started with our market cap. I had to loan out my own money to get things started. For the sake of getting the pool update delivered and not thinking people would post nutty uninformed posts like this, I did that. We lose the funding for those delegates now.. you just cut off our updates and growth at the knees when we could have had a nice shiny new competitive pool by next month. It took over 500,000 BTS just to get the additional programming work STARTED.. it takes more than 3 months of saving up every single BTS of a 100% delegate to amount to that... and we are still paying out bonuses.

I would prefer not to be put further into debt and have the project not move forward because of one rant.

Also regarding Chronos... I am pretty sure people were more in agreement to see that continue to go towards core dev.

dev.sidhujag has been down for weeks now.. all indications are he has Gensoed and should be voted down.

I can feel your pain since you seem to have fronted some of your own money here. I am just trying to get the maximum transparency out of it. And I guess that is in the interest of everyone.
I hope we can keep up an open and rational discussion so the public and shareholders can see where their funds are put. Attacking any efforts to increase transparency and public discussion is against the public hiring process inherent to DPOS.

"underhanded"... I did not just post this without asking questions, see https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,16340.msg232666.html#msg232666

But I don't want to talk about any personal thing or insulations

On the content:
I read your new proposal. The crucial question is whether the final revenue of this "business" (referral commissions from the wallet provider that bitshares-mining will become) will go to those that finance it's development (bts holders through delegate pay) or to you. See my full post here https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,18253.msg233360.html#msg233360

Again, this is not personal. If you we don't manage to make these kinds of discussion impersonal DPOS loses.

@delulo: I appreciate what DataSecurityNode is trying to accomplish, but I also applaud your efforts to assure funds are being used as wisely as possible.  And although I understand that with 2.0 there will be greater scrutiny and accountability (hopefully helped along by DposHub), I agree that it makes sense to scrutinize as much as possible now.  Having said that, I wonder if you are able to tally all BTS currently being paid to non-dev delegates above the 3% pay rate.  I am curious what the current total daily (non-dev) dilution may be.  Are you able to do that calculation? 

Quote from: delulo on August 29, 2015, 01:43:28 pm

Much appreciated!
What I'd like to see is a calculation /estiamte based on the numbers that have been generated up to now. Amount of funds used vs amount of transaction fees generated (plus possibly estimate over future tx fees). Such a calculation / numbers are much more objective than all the texting we are doing here...

Thanks!
Looking at this http://bitsharesblocks.com/delegates (+ sort by pay rate), roughly 40% of delegates (very roughly) are marketing delegates of some sort which imo is way to high given  that we have a wallet that is unusable and we would be marketing a version of bitshares which is inferior to what we finally aim for (bitshares 2.0). If someone wants to market the idea / concept of bitshares then I'd say it is much more powerful to do that while having a powerful and working client that can showcase the theory.

Getting practical with the above

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,18249.msg233236.html#msg233236

Here are my personal unvoting favorites (all 100% delegates):

Aside from https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,18151.msg232045.html#msg232045

MineBitshares (5/7 (!) 100% delegates!)
I have added MineBitshares to my personal unvoting list. Why? Because it has 5 (!!) 100% delegates  in the Top 101 and 2 more 100% percent delegates at 102 and 104. I think Jonathan is a good guy with many talents but the total of 7 100% delegates we are talking about here is A LOT OF DILUTION for an unproven marketing effort! See https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,16340.msg232666.html#msg232666 
Note that I asked questions first and tried to get an OBJECTIVE measure for effectiveness of this effort. The rationale is: If we scale this up from 2 to 7 minebitshares delegates there has to be OBJECTIVE proof from the 2 minebitshares delegates that were in the top 101 for many month now that this is cost effective (see the post above)

chronos.payroll.lafona has steppeddown: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,16536.msg233081.html#msg233081


I am a little divided on sollywood.sollars-com. I think he is doing a great job with his videos! But his effort is a private venture and is not providing core infrastructure for Bitshares. I think it is justnot something for a delegate / even less for a worker in the future. See his proposal https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=13900.0

There are no update from dev.sidhujag. I also value his efforts in the past A LOT. He just seems to not be developing actively anymore, see https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,12027.45.html

media.bitscape is still at 100, see the original post: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,18151.msg232045.html#msg232045


I would encourage you to do the same and be critical of people's claims and their fancy advertisement and long talking, not necessarily because there would be some evil intent but just because the delegate concept might not make economic sense / may not be profitable for you as a BTS holder and fancy, long winded and frequent advertisement may be used to cover this.

IN THE END: If such a public discussion is not possible because one is afraid that the to be unvoted delegate may not like you anymore than that is negative for DPOS. DPOS can live without such an open public discussion too but a lot less effective.  Let's establish a culture of content focus instead of one of politics and advertisement, see https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,18196.0.html