Quote from: bitcoinerS on November 11, 2014, 11:28:16 PM

157,680,000 is max pay per delegate per year.
If all 101 delegates were to receive max pay result would be:
15,925,680,000

Nope.

157,680,000 is max pay for all 101 delegates put together, per year.

Max pay for one delegate is 1,561,188 BTS per year.


This is exactly why its not a big deal, and why everyone who doesnt understand how it works is massively overreacting and trashing the BTSX price. :)


A max pay delegate gets 50 BTS for each of THEIR blocks, which only come once in each 101 blocks.
Not 50 BTS for everyone's blocks.


If it was the other way then we would be facing massive inflation and I wouldve sold all my bitshares and left already. ;)

157,680,000 is max pay per delegate per year.
If all 101 delegates were to receive max pay result would be:
15,925,680,000

Quote from: davidpbrown on November 11, 2014, 11:01:07 PM

Quote from: Ander on November 11, 2014, 08:26:16 AM
Here is the hard cap of BTS at 4 year intervals:
~
Nov 2014
Nov 2018
Nov 2012
Nov 2016
Nov 2020
~

I'm tired but those dates look confused.

Heh. 

I made this thread very late last night after seeing the news and managed to get like three different things wrong.

Fixed it now. :)

Quote from: starspirit on November 11, 2014, 10:48:53 PM

Quote from: bytemaster on November 11, 2014, 10:37:50 PM
I think it is also safe to say that unless the market cap falls by 50% or more from where we are today that there should be no need to increase dilution.   $3 million dollars per year is what the current system allows delegates to fund.  If we can double our market cap then we will have a $6 million dollar budget.   These kinds of budgets will scale with our growth and are in line with current burn rates of funding.   

With regards to organic growth, your statement makes sense to me. But suppose we had the opportunity to on-board the entire community (developers and users) of another high-feature "coin" in the digital currency space, through an airdrop on all the users of those coins, because we thought the feature development in bitShares as well as the network effects would be not just additive but compounded. This may require a much higher one-off dilution of shares. Is this type of thing within scope?

I don't want to comment on what is possible, but I don't think we should be looking to do these kinds of "big moves" because they are so disruptive.   It had better be to bring on apple, google, ms, or a major bank rather than just adopt another crypto project....

We are far better off competing / copying rather than buying.

Quote from: davidpbrown on November 11, 2014, 11:01:07 PM

Quote from: Ander on November 11, 2014, 08:26:16 AM
Here is the hard cap of BTS at 4 year intervals:
~
Nov 2014
Nov 2018
Nov 2012
Nov 2016
Nov 2020
~

I'm tired but those dates look confused.

It's 2022 and 2026.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

Quote from: Ander on November 11, 2014, 08:26:16 AM
Here is the hard cap of BTS at 4 year intervals:
~
Nov 2014
Nov 2018
Nov 2012
Nov 2016
Nov 2020
~

I'm tired but those dates look confused.

Quote from: starspirit on November 11, 2014, 10:48:53 PM
With regards to organic growth, your statement makes sense to me. But suppose we had the opportunity to on-board the entire community (developers and users) of another high-feature "coin" in the digital currency space, through an airdrop on all the users of those coins, because we thought the feature development in bitShares as well as the network effects would be not just additive but compounded. This may require a much higher one-off dilution of shares. Is this type of thing within scope?

If it had a very large community consensus support then it would happen.   If it didnt, it wouldnt happen.

Think of it kindof like amending the constitution.  That is the probably about the level of difficulty we will need in order to change things in the future.

Quote from: bytemaster on November 11, 2014, 10:37:50 PM
I think it is also safe to say that unless the market cap falls by 50% or more from where we are today that there should be no need to increase dilution.   $3 million dollars per year is what the current system allows delegates to fund.  If we can double our market cap then we will have a $6 million dollar budget.   These kinds of budgets will scale with our growth and are in line with current burn rates of funding.   

With regards to organic growth, your statement makes sense to me. But suppose we had the opportunity to on-board the entire community (developers and users) of another high-feature "coin" in the digital currency space, through an airdrop on all the users of those coins, because we thought the feature development in bitShares as well as the network effects would be not just additive but compounded. This may require a much higher one-off dilution of shares. Is this type of thing within scope?

Quote from: starspirit on November 11, 2014, 10:27:30 PM

Quote from: Ander on November 11, 2014, 10:15:51 PM

Quote from: starspirit on November 11, 2014, 10:13:35 PM
Is this an absolute hard cap? OR could the community in theory vote in future to increase it? (like the US debt "ceiling")

This is what the code does.

Changing it would require a code fork and getting everyone on board.


In the end, nothing is impossible.  It is possible to change the bitcoin payout system and make it inflate forever, for example, IF you can get a strong agreement and everyone agrees to that fork.

Bitcoin never has changed it. We have just changed it, which in a way shows we are more dynamic, but also less certain. Past experience is what people judge us all by. Doing it once with clear purpose the market will accept I believe. But maybe "absolute hard cap" is a bit stronger terminology than warranted.

To be certain our official stance is: 
1) bitshare holders can dilute without limit by majority approval (to say otherwise is to sign a suiside pact)
2) bitshare's code is implemented to prevent dilution greater than the hard-fork cap which will require all delegates, merchants, users, and exchanges to upgrade or the dilution doesn't happen.   
3) changing this code should require the election of a delegate that supports it to the #1 delegate spot. 
4) Thus the dilution has a safety valve which should not be tampered with lightly and helps set a budget.

I think it is also safe to say that unless the market cap falls by 50% or more from where we are today that there should be no need to increase dilution.   $3 million dollars per year is what the current system allows delegates to fund.  If we can double our market cap then we will have a $6 million dollar budget.   These kinds of budgets will scale with our growth and are in line with current burn rates of funding.     

Quote from: starspirit on November 11, 2014, 10:27:30 PM

Bitcoin never has changed it. We have just changed it, which in a way shows we are more dynamic, but also less certain. Past experience is what people judge us all by. Doing it once with clear purpose the market will accept I believe. But maybe "absolute hard cap" is a bit stronger terminology than warranted.

At this point we need to advertise a clear message again about what bitshares is.

Absolute hard cap is definitely a part of that clear message that we need to broadcast, to regain the trust of the larger community.

Quote from: Ander on November 11, 2014, 10:15:51 PM

Quote from: starspirit on November 11, 2014, 10:13:35 PM
Is this an absolute hard cap? OR could the community in theory vote in future to increase it? (like the US debt "ceiling")

This is what the code does.

Changing it would require a code fork and getting everyone on board.


In the end, nothing is impossible.  It is possible to change the bitcoin payout system and make it inflate forever, for example, IF you can get a strong agreement and everyone agrees to that fork.

Bitcoin never has changed it. We have just changed it, which in a way shows we are more dynamic, but also less certain. Past experience is what people judge us all by. Doing it once with clear purpose the market will accept I believe. But maybe "absolute hard cap" is a bit stronger terminology than warranted.

Quote from: Frodo on November 11, 2014, 06:18:12 PM
In the (very) long run this isn't feasible. As delegates don't get paid by tx fees anymore and the reward approaches 0.

To ensure that the code is robust against need to hard fork the funding model we have decided to pay fees to delegates as well (percentage of fees based on pay rate).

This will maintain the long-running delegate pay model and simply add a bit of dilution to help cover us while we are growing transaction volume.

Quote from: starspirit on November 11, 2014, 10:13:35 PM
Is this an absolute hard cap? OR could the community in theory vote in future to increase it? (like the US debt "ceiling")

This is what the code does.

Changing it would require a code fork and getting everyone on board.


In the end, nothing is impossible.  It is possible to change the bitcoin payout system and make it inflate forever, for example, IF you can get a strong agreement and everyone agrees to that fork.

Is this an absolute hard cap? OR could the community in theory vote in future to increase it? (like the US debt "ceiling")

In the very long run, when the reward is mostly gone, perhaps transaction fees will pay delegates, just like in bitcoin, instead of being burned.

This is the same plan that bitcoin has for the long term - pay for maintaining the network with transaction fees.

Its a lot easier for Bitshares to do this, because DPoS is so much cheaper than PoW.