Quote from: lil_jay890 on January 23, 2015, 05:15:20 PM
So you would be like a ratings agency?  Seems like you would have a lot of power over who is elected and who isn't...

That is my fear too for the future of bitshares...
hope we have not something like ....
I mean with so much power they have (more than Countries Governments in my opinion)

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/feb/15/credit-ratings-agencies-moodys
http://www.voxeu.org/article/rating-agency-europe-good-idea
http://www.economicpredictions.org/who-is-to-blame-for-the-financial-crisis.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Three_%28credit_rating_agencies%29

The OP is a great proposal. market.cn.group101 has my vote!

so we need a Government into bitshares already... 

Sent from my ALCATEL ONE TOUCH 997D

Personal opinion that it should and also will happen

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

Quote from: toast on January 23, 2015, 11:13:26 PM
We want to separate delegates from workers and paid proposal and have all inflation require a majority of active votes

Are you stating your personal opinion of what should be done in the future or are you announcing future plans that the dev team has reached a consensus on? Because that is a pretty big change (which I welcome happily!!!!).

Also, define "active votes". By one definition, "majority of active votes" may mean >50% of BTS stake. By another definition it may mean > 16.31%/2 = 8.155%. If it is the latter, I would prefer instead the median of active votes, i.e. the appoval percentage of the delegate in rank 51, which is currently 10.47%. Still better, would be to use a system I described previously where upvotes compete with downvotes in determining whether a proposal or worker hiring/firing becomes activated.

We want to separate delegates from workers and paid proposal and have all inflation require a majority of active votes

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

Quote from: matt608 on January 23, 2015, 06:45:57 PM
The low pay delegates especially need vetting as they are placed under a lot less scrutiny than 100% delegates (for good reason, but if every 3% delegate was run by the same person it would be a completely centralised system).  All the 100% are either from the original team, have verified their uniqueness by talking on mumble, or are producing tangible work.  They still may need reminding to produce reports though.

The low pay delegates are more of a risk, 1 person could control dozens of low pay delegates at the moment.  We need all delegates vetted so we can at the very least know which delegates are being run by people who claim to be unique individuals.  Then more scrutiny can be placed on finding out if that is true or not.

Its a different kind of vetting needed for low vs high pay delegates.

For low pay delegates, what we need to verify is that they are not the same person as other delegates (so we aren't centralized), and that the are producing valid blocks and providing feeds.


For high pay delegates, we need to verify that they are working productively and adding value. 

Proof of Delegate  ;D

Quote from: Empirical1.1 on January 23, 2015, 05:02:50 PM
I hope 1 day BitShares has a delegate profile site.

- Where it easy to view the delegates, their projects and their progress.

+5% yup will add it on 2nd step

Quote from: matt608 on January 23, 2015, 06:45:57 PM
The low pay delegates especially need vetting as they are placed under a lot less scrutiny than 100% delegates (for good reason, but if every 3% delegate was run by the same person it would be a completely centralised system).  All the 100% are either from the original team, have verified their uniqueness by talking on mumble, or are producing tangible work.  They still may need reminding to produce reports though.

The low pay delegates are more of a risk, 1 person could control dozens of low pay delegates at the moment.  We need all delegates vetted so we can at the very least know which delegates are being run by people who claim to be unique individuals.  Then more scrutiny can be placed on finding out if that is true or not.

It's for this reason exactly why I don't mind there not being a separation of 'blockmaker' and 'business' delegates. Once we have that separation, our blockmakers would suddenly become much less vetted.

Good idea, since DPOS is a critical part of BTS, the delegates needs much more information about them.

The low pay delegates especially need vetting as they are placed under a lot less scrutiny than 100% delegates (for good reason, but if every 3% delegate was run by the same person it would be a completely centralised system).  All the 100% are either from the original team, have verified their uniqueness by talking on mumble, or are producing tangible work.  They still may need reminding to produce reports though.

The low pay delegates are more of a risk, 1 person could control dozens of low pay delegates at the moment.  We need all delegates vetted so we can at the very least know which delegates are being run by people who claim to be unique individuals.  Then more scrutiny can be placed on finding out if that is true or not.

Quote from: edilliam on January 23, 2015, 06:23:24 PM
I've been thinking about a similar idea for a while now.

However: "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"

every reader who reads their report are their reviewer . If reader find something wrong in their report , they can point it out .
As they always said , readers are the king .

It is a good and necessary idea. The details of reporting criteria are important.

I've been thinking about a similar idea for a while now.

However: "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"