Quote from: Xeldal on June 19, 2014, 02:38:52 PM

Quote from: bytemaster on June 19, 2014, 02:04:59 PM

The primary thing we are trying to avoid is giving the initial delegates undo advantage of votes from those who lost their keys, donated from an exchange, or are too lazy to get involved.  For this reason starting all votes as 'negative' votes means that the real names with real votes will get in priority over those we assign.  It also removes any accusations of bias in initial delegate selection. 

Changing the name to be 'unelected-your-name-x' allows people to see your performance and thus vote for 'your-name-x'. 

We could give you just 'your-name-x' but if we start you out with negative votes from passive users it may end up poorly for you.

I think your doing the right thing.  This sounds good.  I was concerned that we would be competing with ourselves to get a real name in to a spot but with the negative votes, as you've explained, clears this up.  Thank you. 

Will a new delegate with 0 votes push out an init-delegate with negative votes?

Yes

Quote from: bytemaster on June 19, 2014, 02:04:59 PM

The primary thing we are trying to avoid is giving the initial delegates undo advantage of votes from those who lost their keys, donated from an exchange, or are too lazy to get involved.  For this reason starting all votes as 'negative' votes means that the real names with real votes will get in priority over those we assign.  It also removes any accusations of bias in initial delegate selection. 

Changing the name to be 'unelected-your-name-x' allows people to see your performance and thus vote for 'your-name-x'. 

We could give you just 'your-name-x' but if we start you out with negative votes from passive users it may end up poorly for you.

I think your doing the right thing.  This sounds good.  I was concerned that we would be competing with ourselves to get a real name in to a spot but with the negative votes, as you've explained, clears this up.  Thank you. 

Will a new delegate with 0 votes push out an init-delegate with negative votes? 

Quote from: bytemaster on June 19, 2014, 02:04:59 PM

The primary thing we are trying to avoid is giving the initial delegates undo advantage of votes from those who lost their keys, donated from an exchange, or are too lazy to get involved.  For this reason starting all votes as 'negative' votes means that the real names with real votes will get in priority over those we assign.  It also removes any accusations of bias in initial delegate selection. 

Changing the name to be 'unelected-your-name-x' allows people to see your performance and thus vote for 'your-name-x'. 

We could give you just 'your-name-x' but if we start you out with negative votes from passive users it may end up poorly for you.

Thanks for the explanation!


One more thing... I've seen somewhere comments about enabling "no-vote" state. Isn't this contrary to the idea in the DPOS whitepaper? Will this be implemented?
Here is the quote in question:

QuoteThis sounds like a good idea. I'd modify it in that after shares start paying inactivity fees they should no longer vote, which means we need a no-vote state anyway, instead of generating fake delegates to sink votes.

Quote from: Xeldal on June 19, 2014, 01:15:39 PM

Quote from: emski on June 19, 2014, 03:37:14 AM

Quote from: bytemaster on June 18, 2014, 11:22:14 PM
We will probably say something like "unelected-yourusername-xx"

Well that is what i didnt like in the first place.
What is the reasoning in this?
Why not leave the names as is? They have low votes and the stake decides what should happen?
You have enough stake to do whatever you want anyway.... at least in the beginning.

Yes I don't see the difference.  If everyone has to create another delegate anyway just leave the names as they are.  init-delegate or uneletected, same thing.  The point of picking a name was to avoid the mess of everyone needing to recreate another delegate and compete with themselves for a spot, but it seems we will have to do this anyway.  I say just leave it.

The primary thing we are trying to avoid is giving the initial delegates undo advantage of votes from those who lost their keys, donated from an exchange, or are too lazy to get involved.  For this reason starting all votes as 'negative' votes means that the real names with real votes will get in priority over those we assign.  It also removes any accusations of bias in initial delegate selection. 

Changing the name to be 'unelected-your-name-x' allows people to see your performance and thus vote for 'your-name-x'. 

We could give you just 'your-name-x' but if we start you out with negative votes from passive users it may end up poorly for you.

Quote from: emski on June 19, 2014, 03:37:14 AM

Quote from: bytemaster on June 18, 2014, 11:22:14 PM
We will probably say something like "unelected-yourusername-xx"

Well that is what i didnt like in the first place.
What is the reasoning in this?
Why not leave the names as is? They have low votes and the stake decides what should happen?
You have enough stake to do whatever you want anyway.... at least in the beginning.

Yes I don't see the difference.  If everyone has to create another delegate anyway just leave the names as they are.  init-delegate or uneletected, same thing.  The point of picking a name was to avoid the mess of everyone needing to recreate another delegate and compete with themselves for a spot, but it seems we will have to do this anyway.  I say just leave it. 

Quote from: JoeyD on June 19, 2014, 10:46:05 AM
Same as betax I did not arrive home in time to be part of the previous delegate batch and have been running a highly connected node instead, but if possible could you add these:

Code Select Expand


joeyd-d1: XTS7xm5K6cVv8y7dowzjTBLTwWBXQDVvKHsU3a5qDhcUSwvcwjV4u
joeyd-d2: XTS549hCkKyf4UM7rNEeF7Q83CBYdetx3smujtX2FazXTDoWnyuDW
joeyd-d3: XTS5iaa34ikXpLArVrk7wjSEwjpU9fUCznW3bSynuYGtm6xvT2Xdp
joeyd-d4: XTS5a5SrAWoXzUvDmtL4CZcYYLwSkJJk3ch2a9RNzDNERCogZZPY4
joeyd-d5: XTS671QbNrgCy945UDPRmDPf3ARQaP6vHBXAH25mt1oB5QRsrwaLS


Btw, is it possible to use a different datadir for the client apart from the usual .Bitshares\ XTS one?

use --data-dir yournewdatadir

Same as betax I did not arrive home in time to be part of the previous delegate batch and have been running a highly connected node instead, but if possible could you add these:


joeyd-d1: XTS7xm5K6cVv8y7dowzjTBLTwWBXQDVvKHsU3a5qDhcUSwvcwjV4u
joeyd-d2: XTS549hCkKyf4UM7rNEeF7Q83CBYdetx3smujtX2FazXTDoWnyuDW
joeyd-d3: XTS5iaa34ikXpLArVrk7wjSEwjpU9fUCznW3bSynuYGtm6xvT2Xdp
joeyd-d4: XTS5a5SrAWoXzUvDmtL4CZcYYLwSkJJk3ch2a9RNzDNERCogZZPY4
joeyd-d5: XTS671QbNrgCy945UDPRmDPf3ARQaP6vHBXAH25mt1oB5QRsrwaLS


Btw, is it possible to use a different datadir for the client apart from the usual .Bitshares\ XTS one?

who can send my some XTS
thank you very much
XTS6g8JzHR9WFixKjXTw3vwN54KE3Bf4kbLjBKUcw7i9yEzzD1aj4

boombastic-ags: XTS8Eso3RfRDQviSKuQxhWL9hQCQ7siaZPbDzYULxcat1d1ncdhu1
boombastic-d1: XTS6AP3ZtBT6sv9fZ2c5nmuLzsG6MNgczvBbCqdwsjCfg5BuzadKw
boombastic-d2: XTS82M4MbX3Gd6Vo46SUZLYe7pCNtNJCuEyqebB41wD1hP4X6gq1M
boombastic-d3: XTS8KJLiTawftAfutXbKGwuAasJvpeaJo8YxykdudWyWKBm4wHqop
boombastic-d4: XTS86TZiNBDvUgGq2im1mfWSVEoGGzMuPJAy971KGYuxYqSYQJrgQ

Thanks.

denkhaus-delegate-1: XTS6snqX6msDPGuk6V8W5AXDtpaLLFUAjUFjM7LSSqyx7D9zJ65PY
denkhaus-delegate-2: XTS6v9Dt9Yz4XyMaiQLzKqS7V2LwVMj2KYHL7Bqeg7f7QEaRb7CHR
denkhaus-delegate-3: XTS5fXuqAN8cSpkmGaf4vSGA2fgojch2ZF5PcSxqnx2yw7sZ8rWGW
denkhaus-delegate-4: XTS7LV8XA8cXPb5y7DBGqdDMV8sV2cXsdimCq3oxPvwm3heHa67jY
denkhaus-delegate-5: XTS8kAZ2CG1WF1gSPpRLNH1Sx9ggYX1s3QEQ5fBYU6gQjpvhMwMCj

thanks

Quote from: toast on June 19, 2014, 04:53:54 AM
Because those people didn't get voted in, they are all chosen pretty much arbitrarily. It's to emphasize we are not endorsing them and they are just there as a consequence of the fact that you need *some* initial delegates.

Sounds reasonable. I just didn't like the negativism in "untrusted".


betax *                            XTS8E7T1qxvfWKVZtq9HBZ8Nmv8RUSxwksukhCx3gcGEKenZN3bfh         
betax1                             XTS73dBszwFUwiTvJQLgcMEBJ8Wx4KJFQuRpsMQADQMMX5Vhtujc5             
betax2                             XTS8PYVQwRme5bRsQ1q8eufQaRfKyrBJ8ZNWoVRRGuptA2bL8w8rc           
betax3                             XTS7Tvq8YS4s6ch9BoAGs8dXEZov2UDfGcN5KhmU1UzgYiSXW5ovy         


Thanks that's great!

These are not init delegates btw, I missed the first week.  :(

puppies XTS8djaCmGAU6VhQ6Ri1VEyr187cVaYar62if72rvTtUwNkvPCvqG           
2puppies XTS6s5vsTDMJm429keEXJi4RSAHhgm2mf6GGuV7LnKvZYfPMeXFS1           
3puppies XTS5LGPcabhmv2Y3rpT5YP1Ba8nUFoU1P2GFrth81Za9TFV78EjBc           
4puppies XTS8UTxLFKWaL2aFLxhwNC9C1JnTRrtDSpKTeAvB9yqNavVfFRkQ1

Or just leave them as init-delegate-13-16

Quote from: emski on June 19, 2014, 03:37:14 AM

Quote from: bytemaster on June 18, 2014, 11:22:14 PM
We will probably say something like "unelected-yourusername-xx"

Well that is what i didnt like in the first place.
What is the reasoning in this?
Why not leave the names as is? They have low votes and the stake decides what should happen?
You have enough stake to do whatever you want anyway.... at least in the beginning.

Because those people didn't get voted in, they are all chosen pretty much arbitrarily. It's to emphasize we are not endorsing them and they are just there as a consequence of the fact that you need *some* initial delegates.

Quote from: bytemaster on June 18, 2014, 11:22:14 PM
We will probably say something like "unelected-yourusername-xx"

Well that is what i didnt like in the first place.
What is the reasoning in this?
Why not leave the names as is? They have low votes and the stake decides what should happen?
You have enough stake to do whatever you want anyway.... at least in the beginning.