Quote from: emski on June 25, 2014, 01:31:04 PM
Yes that might be a problem, an autovote option could solve it.

I was wondering about another situation:
A pays B with a large sum => A votes with that transaction. However the sum is controlled by B now and the vote is cast by A (who now might not even have a stake).

Yhea .. that's true .. easy solution would be to highlight to the users which of his stakes votes for which delegate .. and ensure that the wallet moves those funds first (might be difficult to implement)

Or maybe an autovote (option) such that each stake that does not vote in your selected favor gets automoved (-fees)
This also would resulting in an auto-move when removing an upvote

Yes that might be a problem, an autovote option could solve it.

I was wondering about another situation:
A pays B with a large sum => A votes with that transaction. However the sum is controlled by B now and the vote is cast by A (who now might not even have a stake).

Quote from: emski on June 25, 2014, 12:56:32 PM
Auto-move is what I meant. Currently you need to do it manually. And by auto-move I meant this: the client checks if you've "thumb-upped" delegates and you have unspent outputs without vote => it autovotes for you.

I am sure the devs can implement that .. but I am not sure if the users what it as you have to pay a transaciton fee for each vote then!

Quote from: xeroc on June 25, 2014, 12:49:24 PM

Quote from: emski on June 25, 2014, 12:39:24 PM
Can we have a transaction that doesn't transfer funds between two accounts but just votes?
Or source and destination are the same?

That's how proof-of-stake works everywhere .. if you don't move stake .. you cannot secure the network .. peercoin and all others do an 'auto-move'

If you want to sit on your stake you cannot vote!

Auto-move is what I meant. Currently you need to do it manually. And by auto-move I meant this: the client checks if you've "thumb-upped" delegates and you have unspent outputs without vote => it autovotes for you.

Quote from: emski on June 25, 2014, 12:39:24 PM

Quote from: xeroc on June 25, 2014, 12:36:57 PM
* If you moved money from 'founder' to 'founder' just to vote .. you effectivly move them out of your private key ..
* It's extra effort to export the private key of an unregistered account and import it into an other wallet (basically not working here at all)

Can we have a transaction that doesn't transfer funds between two accounts but just votes?
Or source and destination are the same?

EDIT: requirement for users to manually do such thing so that they can vote doesn't look good to me.

That's how proof-of-stake works everywhere .. if you don't move stake .. you cannot secure the network .. peercoin and all others do an 'auto-move'

If you want to sit on your stake you cannot vote!

I filed an issue:
https://github.com/BitShares/bitshares_toolkit/issues/404

Note the issue number :)

Quote from: xeroc on June 25, 2014, 12:36:57 PM
* If you moved money from 'founder' to 'founder' just to vote .. you effectivly move them out of your private key ..
* It's extra effort to export the private key of an unregistered account and import it into an other wallet (basically not working here at all)

Can we have a transaction that doesn't transfer funds between two accounts but just votes?
Or source and destination are the same?

EDIT: requirement for users to manually do such thing so that they can vote doesn't look good to me.

* If you moved money from 'founder' to 'founder' just to vote .. you effectivly move them out of your private key ..
* It's extra effort to export the private key of an unregistered account and import it into an other wallet (basically not working here at all)

what issues ?

Just a wild shot to reduce issues

* create an account 'founder' (no need to register,  arbitrary name)
* wallet_import_privkey <privkeys> founder
* wallet_import_bitcoin 'file' founder
* Move your funds to a registered name, i.e. keyhotee founder id or registered after launch
  wallet_transfer foo XTS founder registereid "initial stake"

Done