Regarding the attack vector, IMO its non-existent. Users won't be randomly downloading any wallet of the internet and expose their keys to it. Any wallet which has a certain amount of negativity associated with it would be universally shunned.

But did you read this explanation sumantso?

Quote from: blahblah7up on February 15, 2015, 02:32:23 pm

Especially as a wallet becomes more polished and professional the potential to attract lay-users who are more apathetic increases, making hard-coding ever more dangerous.

This is a very important point that I wanted to bring attention to. People will start downloading the wallet, and they won't care how it's voting.

People often call 'voter apathy' a problem but as Stan has said in a recent BCT topic of his, people who don't vote are basically delegating their votes to the people that do vote. Usually, people opt to do this when they know that they don't have the knowledge to make informed decisions, and don't have the time to do the research that would allow them to be informed. Let's call this group 'aware non-voters'.

Some people don't vote simply just because they are lazy; let's call these people 'the lazies'.

There is also a group of individuals that don't even understand or think about voting at all. In this case, they are implicitly doing the same as the knowingly-ignorant, delegating their votes to the people that do vote; let's call this group 'ignorant non-voters'.

By hard-coding delegates, you are exploiting the ignorant non-voters and the lazies, inserting them inside the Moonstone matrix, harvesting the votes that they either don't realize they have, or don't care about. While the ignorant non-voters group is currently small, our targeted demographic will most likely bring many, many more of them, to the point where they will outnumber us by a long-shot. They will all be voting for you without understanding that that is what they are doing, and you will be impossible to vote out.

We cannot let this happen, or else DecentralizeEconomics is right. The voting power of the voluntary will be stolen.

What about something really sugar-coated?  Imagine a game which functions as a voting wallet on the back end, with hard-coded delegates.  Couldn't something like this be effectively used in an attack against DPoS?  A sort of zombie consumer attack?

Thank you very much fluxer555 for expounding on that.  It is a very important idea indeed!

I'll just add, that the way this thread is playing out may be, in part, an answer to your question.  Namely, that many participants recognize your proposal as a threat and will shun your project as a result.  But that is valid only in the current state of things.  And the outcome of your current proposal, even if defeated by rational actors wanting to maintain their voting priviledge, is in no way indicative of what will happen at scale.

I see why people get emotional about the hardcoding. However, as a shareholder people should reflect and think what their actions mean for the ecosystem as a whole.

I think the mistake in your logic is the assumption that everyone here is motivated exclusively by profit.

There are other motivating factors in life, and many people here are living proof of that as many of them are essentially working for free.

Nothing is mandatory, nobody pushes people to use the Moonstone wallet. Everything is opt-in. Example: If you don't like Dropbox storing your data in the cloud, don't use it. If you don't like Bitcoin being pseudonymous rather than anonymous, don;t use it. It's all inherently opt-in.

The first three words of this quote is a slap in the face of logic, given your proposal. But aside from that, this is the usual excuse given to the uproars caused by large internet companies sharing user information with advertising firms or goverment agencies. Here you give it to us preemptively. It is actually why a lot of people are here trying to create a new system.  Your product is not "inherently op-in" as you insist because it is not transparent.  It is manipulative.  And the more polished and convenient it becomes for the average user, the more dangerous it becomes as a tool for manipulation.

Your proposal is the equivalent of undercutting the very foundations of DPOS which is voting and campaigning for voter approval.  It is a hostile takeover as such.  It could actually be regarded as exploiting an attack vector on DPOS.

I would say expect a storm.

I also agree with tonyk2.  It is the most arogant proposal and general posture I have seen to date on this forum.

Your thinking is equivalent to a state-run television network, producing content upfront and then creating laws (in your case hard-coded delegates), requiring people to pay for it.

I'm sure your wallet will be fantastic.  But your approach to Bitshares is hostile as it undermines it's consensus structure and is thus extremely dangerous and suspect.

@Xeldal

as Stan always says, I think: You're not thinking big enough.

What I mean is, I don't think Bitshares can scale this way as it was inteded to be used. Imagine 50 different projects being developed simultaneously with 3 hardcoded delegates each. If the projects gained enormous traction what would be the result?  The postion of a campaining delegate would essentially be dead.

blahblah7up, on the other hand, probably took weeks to come up w/ his acct. name.

ha! 

Congratulations on getting the balance back.

I would ask this question in the Bitshares sub-forum or maybe in the Technical questions sub-forum (of the Bitshares sub-forum).

Account names registered on the blockchain are unique. There was even a rush to get certain names registered in the beginning and people squatting on names.

In your own wallet you can make many different accounts and use whatever names you want but if you try to register them on the blockchain and they are already taken it won't work.

This is my understanding.

This is indeed a very bad idea.  Hard coded delegates have no place in Bitshares.  Perhaps in MUSIC which is slowly becoming a closed source nightmare.  Especially as a wallet becomes more polished and professional the potential to attract lay-users who are more apathetic increases, making hard-coding ever more dangerous.

I will not only boycott this project, but do my part to actively inform about and lobby against this wallet.

I don't think yield is important enough to take those measures.

Seriously?

Bitshares. You can bank on it.

Quote from: bluebit on February 10, 2015, 02:13:53 am

I'd like to know that answer to this as well, why is BitCNY rising in market cap? Maybe I should be investing in some BitCNY

Market cap of BitAssets is irrelevant from an investment point of view (investment in the BitAsset that is). As long as the peg works (and it is working) 1 BitCNY will always approximately equal 1 CNY, and the value of CNY has not been rising by much relative to USD over the long-term (assuming you are thinking about your investments in dollars).

But you get yield, right?  It's a conservative investment.