Quote from: Riverhead on March 18, 2015, 05:20:02 PM

Electing delegates that are 100% pay but MIA is a good way to assure a large burn rate.

Well, it doesnt actually change the burn rate, if they replaced a lowpay delegate with an inactive one. 
If they wanted to reduce burnrate they should elect a bunch of low pay delegates.

I note that toast's 1% paid delegate cutoff delegate is now elected, which is interesting.

Also, the amount of stake needed to control 51 delegates went up to over 13% (from about 10% I think).  Thats a good thing.


We need to have a campaign for people to remove stake from exchanges and vote with it, for delegates they like. 

It appears to me to be a whale who had an old voting slate (with yunbi/blackwave) in it, transfered all their BTS to that account, but hasnt yet updated their votes intelligently.

It doesnt seem to be a malicious attack, because they are voting for almost all the same delegates as most of the rest of us, just with a few abnormal votes like yunbi/blackwave.  At worst it is someoen voting in a couple paid delegates for themself.

The amount of stake they have is about 5%, given the jump in vote counts.  The large amount of additional voting is actually a good thing in many ways, since it makes it harder for anyone else to attack. 

I think the best course of action is to try to inform this person that they shouldnt be voting for old paid delegates like yunbi/blackwave that gave up on their projects and have been voted out by the community.

Electing delegates that are 100% pay but MIA is a good way to assure a large burn rate.

Quote from: liondani on March 18, 2015, 05:06:42 PM

Quote from: DataSecurityNode on March 18, 2015, 04:35:57 PM

Quote from: matt608 on March 18, 2015, 04:05:04 PM
Whoever voted voted for blackwavelabs too.  It doesn't seem to be a very well informed vote. :s

Ok thats interesting.. maybe this is someone testing the vote system to see what happens next.

If he knows his action will drop the price then it is somebody he has many bitassets...

Sent from my ALCATEL ONE TOUCH 997D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor

I guess this is a result of trusting a "slate" , not necessary voted in these names intentionally .
If you trust a slate , then you'll be voting for whomever the slate is supporting . 

Quote from: DataSecurityNode on March 18, 2015, 04:35:57 PM

Quote from: matt608 on March 18, 2015, 04:05:04 PM
Whoever voted voted for blackwavelabs too.  It doesn't seem to be a very well informed vote. :s

Ok thats interesting.. maybe this is someone testing the vote system to see what happens next.

If he knows his action will drop the price then it is somebody he has many bitassets...

Sent from my ALCATEL ONE TOUCH 997D

if we have more exchanges , then we can be more relax .

all dangers is because btc38 almost is the only exchange for BTS.

来自我的 HUAWEI P7-L00 上的 Tapatalk

Quote from: luckybit on March 18, 2015, 04:27:47 PM

Quote from: favdesu on March 18, 2015, 12:39:16 PM

Quote from: xiahui135 on March 18, 2015, 12:34:18 PM
in fact the exchange can set up 101 delegates and vote all to themselves.

that's very dangerous... also, why do people keep bitshares with a 3rd party? unbelievable

Maybe it's a way to delegate their voting power indirectly to attack Bitshares?

Game theory would say this is bad.
Worse than mining pools.

Game theory or not.  This is an important issue and it needs to be addressed.

Quote from: matt608 on March 18, 2015, 04:05:04 PM
Whoever voted voted for blackwavelabs too.  It doesn't seem to be a very well informed vote. :s

Ok thats interesting.. maybe this is someone testing the vote system to see what happens next.

Quote from: luckybit on March 18, 2015, 04:26:17 PM

Quote from: xiahui135 on March 18, 2015, 12:34:18 PM
in fact the exchange can set up 101 delegates and vote all to themselves.

I guess we should expect BTS to take a huge price tumble now. It's centralized even worse than Bitcoin if this is true.

Whats going on here? Is it a scare tactic or is Bitshares really centralized around one exchange and possibly one person?

No , it's not Yunbi's doing .
you can tell by just seeing their server is not even online ..
also I know this because Yunbi's holding is far less than this vote , so it couldn't be yunbi .

Quote from: favdesu on March 18, 2015, 12:39:16 PM

Quote from: xiahui135 on March 18, 2015, 12:34:18 PM
in fact the exchange can set up 101 delegates and vote all to themselves.

that's very dangerous... also, why do people keep bitshares with a 3rd party? unbelievable

Maybe it's a way to delegate their voting power indirectly to attack Bitshares?

Game theory would say this is bad.
Worse than mining pools.

Quote from: xiahui135 on March 18, 2015, 12:34:18 PM
in fact the exchange can set up 101 delegates and vote all to themselves.

I guess we should expect BTS to take a huge price tumble now. It's centralized even worse than Bitcoin if this is true.

Whats going on here? Is it a scare tactic or is Bitshares really centralized around one exchange and possibly one person?

Whoever voted voted for blackwavelabs too.  It doesn't seem to be a very well informed vote. :s

Quote from: xiahui135 on March 18, 2015, 12:34:18 PM
in fact the exchange can set up 101 delegates and vote all to themselves.

I can say for sure that  Yunbi didn't do this , their server is already down .
And they said that they won't be delegates in the near future .