Yeah we're at 5% on both delegates, is that helpful?  I thought we maxed out at 1% lol

Looks like delegate number one has already produced ten blocks, what is the lag time on the delegate pay?  weekly? daily? monthly?

http://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/lets-talk-bitcoin-129-dogeparty-and-delegated-proof-of-stake

On Todays Episode

Adam talks about the costs of Counterparty and introduces Dogeparty (dogeparty.io) an experimental solution, along with Proof of Charity - a new Token Initialization Method

Daniel Larimer, CEO of Invictus Innovations (bitshares-x.info) (bitsharestalk.org) speaks with Stephanie, Andreas and Adam about the release of BitsharesX, their Delegated Proof of Stake system, automatic stealth addresses, bitUSD and more.


We were tough in the interview, Daniel did very well and I'm quite pleased with the resulting work regardless of the process that brought us here.

Major kudos!

lol this is a terrible idea, any time you try to onboard people by "taking over" something that is theirs and not yours is probably not going to net you the result you want.

Also, it looks REALLY bad that you are the one suggesting this bad idea.

Seriously.

Quote from: AdamBLevine on July 21, 2014, 11:20:18 pm

Quote from: delulo on July 21, 2014, 11:16:26 pm

Quote from: CLains on July 21, 2014, 10:56:15 pm

if it is easy for delegates to see who voted for them, why won't each voter gradually drift toward the delegates that give them the highest immediate cash in return, even off-chain? this seems like an existential threat to the system, it dampens the idea that DPOS will be a force of nature, and weakens the power of decentralization by vote.

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=5868.msg78966#msg78966
POW has the same problem. We should ban "pay back delegates". It is not perfect but it works for Bitcoin. There are also no pay back mining pools.
I think it might not be a problem if all shareholders that vote are educated enough that such voting behaviour harms their assets / the network they own and that (probably by far) is a bigger loss on average than the tiny gains through paid back tx fees. That is how I think about it right now. But please feel free to discuss it! I tried to spark of a solid discussion there but no one really talks about it...

you should only ban what you can enforce.  Can you really enforce a no-pay?  Whats to stop people from paying for "marketing" and it goes to a mass sender going out to their secret backers?

If one delegate is beginning to prove his marketing efforts it will pressure the others to do the same.
I meant a "soft ban" = discussing it, educating people that the personal benefits for them are tiny but the potential harm to the network can be big which harms them a lot as they are shareholders. "Ban" is maybe not the right word. More something like a "social ban". This seems to be against crypto principles but the byzantine generals problems has not been solved by anyone in the space yet. POW, POS and DPOS all have the potential for centralization and it can not be avoided solely by technical means (up to now, lets see).

The problem with a "social ban" is you leave the option to pay for votes only to users already willing to ignore the social norms.  So you take away the quite useful tool of compensating your supporters from those who are willing to follow your rules, which makes it harder for "good" actors to succeed.

So again, I'd really discourage the "banning" of tactics that are actually able to be banned, and don't rely on people following rules.  Good people will follow rules to their detriment, bad people will ignore the rules because nothing makes them stop and they'll have an easier time onboarding support because they have a tool in their arsenal those following the rules do not.

Quote from: CLains on July 21, 2014, 10:56:15 pm

if it is easy for delegates to see who voted for them, why won't each voter gradually drift toward the delegates that give them the highest immediate cash in return, even off-chain? this seems like an existential threat to the system, it dampens the idea that DPOS will be a force of nature, and weakens the power of decentralization by vote.

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=5868.msg78966#msg78966
POW has the same problem. We should ban "pay back delegates". It is not perfect but it works for Bitcoin. There are also no pay back mining pools.
I think it might not be a problem if all shareholders that vote are educated enough that such voting behaviour harms their assets / the network they own and that (probably by far) is a bigger loss on average than the tiny gains through paid back tx fees. That is how I think about it right now. But please feel free to discuss it! I tried to spark of a solid discussion there but no one really talks about it...

you should only ban what you can enforce.  Can you really enforce a no-pay?  Whats to stop people from paying for "marketing" and it goes to a mass sender going out to their secret backers?

Seriously lol, "AdamBLevine" was squatted almost immediately - I only got "adam" haha

I see, you want me to sell you LTBCOIN and you will give me BTSx

As I mentioned, I have quite a few BTSx as well I appreciate your vote of confidence and encourage you to post your offer on the LTB forums where you might find interested takers. http://letstalkbitcoin.com/forum/post/would-you-trade-your-ltbc-for-bitshares

I've taken the liberty of making a post for you, based on the middle-ground rate of .0000225 (between the two figures you quoted) that makes it about 44,444 BTsx per BTC, so its about 3.6 LTBc per BTSx

I'm only interested in trading BTSx for BTC, as I mentioned I have plenty of both BTSx and LTBc.  I'm no longer interested in trading with you since we seem to have a difficult time communicating our intentions.  Good luck.

Feel free to make me an offer, but I have plenty of LTBc and not too many BTC liquid thus my interest in taking one of the several offers that appeared and vanished.  Clout said he would PM me today, but nothing.