Quote from: starspirit on October 31, 2014, 01:48:13 AM
Instead of capping the inflation per delegate, why don't we cap the total inflation across all delegates? That way a single delegate can earn a lot more if the community accepts it.

This would certainly help to keep the number of independent signers closer to 101.  Otherwise we might find ourselves driven toward 25 4-node employees until our market cap quadruples.

Quote from: hughmanwho on October 31, 2014, 02:19:59 AM
I disagree.. I'm a good developer but yet I still prefer Nxt.. precisely because I understand it.

Nxt is truly decentralized and has a very secure core algorithm providing 90% protection.  Something that Bitshares cannot match, precisely because of the delegate system.

Thanks for your perspective, but this sounds more like a biased response toward expressing why NXT is better than bitshares.  This is not really the topic (imho). 

However, your point about understanding it being the number 1 reason you are choosing to develop on it does give us one valid datapoint.  If only we could get it from all Devs...because they all have different motives.

I disagree.. I'm a good developer but yet I still prefer Nxt.. precisely because I understand it.

Nxt is truly decentralized and has a very secure core algorithm providing 90% protection.  Something that Bitshares cannot match, precisely because of the delegate system.

Quote from: starspirit on October 31, 2014, 01:48:13 AM

Quote from: Rune on October 31, 2014, 01:04:00 AM

Quote from: starspirit on October 31, 2014, 12:45:01 AM

Quote from: Ander on October 31, 2014, 12:00:30 AM

Quote from: starspirit on October 30, 2014, 11:42:51 PM
Doesn't inflation allow delegates to get paid more if they can make a case as to how that will contribute to the community?

There is a max amount per delegate, to make sure that the overall inflation level is capped at a reasonable amount.

If voters want to hire someone for more than that amount, they would need to create multiple delegates and get all of them voted in.

What dollar figure does that max amount equate to for a single delegate at this market cap?

around 2.5k USD per month

Instead of capping the inflation per delegate, why don't we cap the total inflation across all delegates? That way a single delegate can earn a lot more if the community accepts it.

These are the kinds of questions that require us to build the tools first.  Until we have a user friendly means of establishing consensus that is transparent and auditable (Vote should help with this), we are substantially held back from growing in these ways.  My inclination is to say that, at least a present, you are not going to see something like this happen as it adds a new layer of complexity that the community does not yet have the tools to absorb. 

Quote from: Rune on October 31, 2014, 01:04:00 AM

Quote from: starspirit on October 31, 2014, 12:45:01 AM

Quote from: Ander on October 31, 2014, 12:00:30 AM

Quote from: starspirit on October 30, 2014, 11:42:51 PM
Doesn't inflation allow delegates to get paid more if they can make a case as to how that will contribute to the community?

There is a max amount per delegate, to make sure that the overall inflation level is capped at a reasonable amount.

If voters want to hire someone for more than that amount, they would need to create multiple delegates and get all of them voted in.

What dollar figure does that max amount equate to for a single delegate at this market cap?

around 2.5k USD per month

Instead of capping the inflation per delegate, why don't we cap the total inflation across all delegates? That way a single delegate can earn a lot more if the community accepts it.

Quote from: starspirit on October 31, 2014, 12:45:01 AM

Quote from: Ander on October 31, 2014, 12:00:30 AM

Quote from: starspirit on October 30, 2014, 11:42:51 PM
Doesn't inflation allow delegates to get paid more if they can make a case as to how that will contribute to the community?

There is a max amount per delegate, to make sure that the overall inflation level is capped at a reasonable amount.

If voters want to hire someone for more than that amount, they would need to create multiple delegates and get all of them voted in.

What dollar figure does that max amount equate to for a single delegate at this market cap?

around 2.5k USD per month

Quote from: Ander on October 31, 2014, 12:00:30 AM

Quote from: starspirit on October 30, 2014, 11:42:51 PM
Doesn't inflation allow delegates to get paid more if they can make a case as to how that will contribute to the community?

There is a max amount per delegate, to make sure that the overall inflation level is capped at a reasonable amount.

If voters want to hire someone for more than that amount, they would need to create multiple delegates and get all of them voted in.

What dollar figure does that max amount equate to for a single delegate at this market cap?

Quote from: Rune on October 30, 2014, 11:47:56 PM

Quote from: julian1 on October 30, 2014, 11:39:54 PM

Quote from: Rune on October 30, 2014, 11:33:35 PM

Quote from: julian1 on October 30, 2014, 11:28:48 PM
I hate the uncertainty inherent in the inflationary model that's been chosen to fund development via giving delegates the power to create new bts. Money creation/quantitative easing etc remains the outstanding problem of fiat currencies especially in less developed countries and this seems like a backwards step.

It would be better to carve out an initial fixed stake up-front, and then distribute in some manner (maybe delegates) and let Bitshares live or flounder on that basis of work achievable with those funds.

Also, many Open-Source projects attract developer talent  on the basis of their inherent perceived value of the project - consider Linux,BSD,XOrg,firefox,GNU,apache etc as obvious and high-profile examples.

It's certainly true there's a lot of marketing value in head-hunting sought-after candidates.

Having delegates inflate their salary into existence is the exact same as having all shareholders pay equally to funding the delegates. From the point of view of how value moves through the system, there is no difference. This is also why tx fees are destroyed rather than paid out to shareholders - the net effect is the same.

It is a mistake to compare it to how governments inflate currencies.

The point of working with an initial stake, is that there is a fixed bound to creation.

At the moment nobody can say whether Bitshares will be net inflationary or deflationary over the coming decade.

Markets punish that type of uncertainty.

Every asset is like this. Markets can never know if they will go up or down in the future, everything the market knows is already priced in.

Right. And the consequence, is that assets like bitcoin or gold will always command a premium since the information regarding their supply can be ascertained with higher precision.

Quote from: starspirit on October 30, 2014, 11:42:51 PM
Doesn't inflation allow delegates to get paid more if they can make a case as to how that will contribute to the community?

There is a max amount per delegate, to make sure that the overall inflation level is capped at a reasonable amount.

If voters want to hire someone for more than that amount, they would need to create multiple delegates and get all of them voted in.

Quote from: julian1 on October 30, 2014, 11:39:54 PM

Quote from: Rune on October 30, 2014, 11:33:35 PM

Quote from: julian1 on October 30, 2014, 11:28:48 PM
I hate the uncertainty inherent in the inflationary model that's been chosen to fund development via giving delegates the power to create new bts. Money creation/quantitative easing etc remains the outstanding problem of fiat currencies especially in less developed countries and this seems like a backwards step.

It would be better to carve out an initial fixed stake up-front, and then distribute in some manner (maybe delegates) and let Bitshares live or flounder on that basis of work achievable with those funds.

Also, many Open-Source projects attract developer talent  on the basis of their inherent perceived value of the project - consider Linux,BSD,XOrg,firefox,GNU,apache etc as obvious and high-profile examples.

It's certainly true there's a lot of marketing value in head-hunting sought-after candidates.

Having delegates inflate their salary into existence is the exact same as having all shareholders pay equally to funding the delegates. From the point of view of how value moves through the system, there is no difference. This is also why tx fees are destroyed rather than paid out to shareholders - the net effect is the same.

It is a mistake to compare it to how governments inflate currencies.

The point of working with an initial stake, is that there is a fixed bound to creation.

At the moment nobody can say whether Bitshares will be net inflationary or deflationary over the coming decade.

Markets punish that type of uncertainty.

Every asset is like this. Markets can never know if they will go up or down in the future, everything the market knows is already priced in.

Doesn't inflation allow delegates to get paid more if they can make a case as to how that will contribute to the community?

Quote from: Rune on October 30, 2014, 11:33:35 PM

Quote from: julian1 on October 30, 2014, 11:28:48 PM
I hate the uncertainty inherent in the inflationary model that's been chosen to fund development via giving delegates the power to create new bts. Money creation/quantitative easing etc remains the outstanding problem of fiat currencies especially in less developed countries and this seems like a backwards step.

It would be better to carve out an initial fixed stake up-front, and then distribute in some manner (maybe delegates) and let Bitshares live or flounder on that basis of work achievable with those funds.

Also, many Open-Source projects attract developer talent  on the basis of their inherent perceived value of the project - consider Linux,BSD,XOrg,firefox,GNU,apache etc as obvious and high-profile examples.

It's certainly true there's a lot of marketing value in head-hunting sought-after candidates.

Having delegates inflate their salary into existence is the exact same as having all shareholders pay equally to funding the delegates. From the point of view of how value moves through the system, there is no difference. This is also why tx fees are destroyed rather than paid out to shareholders - the net effect is the same.

It is a mistake to compare it to how governments inflate currencies.

The point of working with an initial stake, is that there is a fixed bound to creation.

At the moment nobody can say whether Bitshares will be net inflationary or deflationary over the coming decade.

Markets punish that type of uncertainty.

QuoteAlso, many Open-Source projects attract developer talent  on the basis of their inherent perceived value of the project - consider Linux,BSD,XOrg,firefox,GNU,apache etc as obvious and high-profile examples.

It's certainly true there's a lot of marketing value in head-hunting sought-after candidates.

But most open-source projects are not on any hard deadlines so the urgency is not there.

Quote from: julian1 on October 30, 2014, 11:28:48 PM
I hate the uncertainty inherent in the inflationary model that's been chosen to fund development via giving delegates the power to create new bts. Money creation/quantitative easing etc remains the outstanding problem of fiat currencies especially in less developed countries and this seems like a backwards step.

It would be better to carve out an initial fixed stake up-front, and then distribute in some manner (maybe delegates) and let Bitshares live or flounder on that basis of work achievable with those funds.

Also, many Open-Source projects attract developer talent  on the basis of their inherent perceived value of the project - consider Linux,BSD,XOrg,firefox,GNU,apache etc as obvious and high-profile examples.

It's certainly true there's a lot of marketing value in head-hunting sought-after candidates.

This isn't like QE, because BTS is a stake not a currency, and because no one is coercing you to hold it.  If you think BTS will lose value, or if you prioritize stability, hold bitGold or bitUSD instead.  Holding BTS is betting on growth, not betting on stability, so you should not expect BTS to be stable.

Quote from: julian1 on October 30, 2014, 11:28:48 PM
I hate the uncertainty inherent in the inflationary model that's been chosen to fund development via giving delegates the power to create new bts. Money creation/quantitative easing etc remains the outstanding problem of fiat currencies especially in less developed countries and this seems like a backwards step.

It would be better to carve out an initial fixed stake up-front, and then distribute in some manner (maybe delegates) and let Bitshares live or flounder on that basis of work achievable with those funds.

Also, many Open-Source projects attract developer talent  on the basis of their inherent perceived value of the project - consider Linux,BSD,XOrg,firefox,GNU,apache etc as obvious and high-profile examples.

It's certainly true there's a lot of marketing value in head-hunting sought-after candidates.

Having delegates inflate their salary into existence is the exact same as having all shareholders pay equally to funding the delegates. From the point of view of how value moves through the system, there is no difference. This is also why tx fees are destroyed rather than paid out to shareholders - the net effect is the same.