Notification from the Chinese community about "sfinder"

[twitter]

我看了一下星在飘的帖子,他做得对，那么早就质疑理事会，挥霍bts公款的情况，看来理事会早就烂了

通过我的 V1813A 上的 Tapatalk发言

[binggo]

像公会这些萌新怎么可能知道这些故事呢，毕竟人家现在是某eos与公会的桥梁与灵魂人物，何况公会也不会在乎这些事情的。

妙啊，妙啊！

[abit]

Something new.

witness: baidu  updated to cnvote  patch

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=1619.msg27607#msg27607

[gulu]

It would be very helpful if a member of the chinese community could confirm that!

Thanks for the clarifications so far ...

I am well aware of the situation in the Chinese community. And I confirm with this post. All the delegates controlled by sfinder needs to be voted down, for the good of the community.

[her0]

“Hustling for benefit, all come; bustling for benefit, all leave.”

[fluxer555]

You could just lower the resolution. It calculates decay in intervals of 7 days.

[bytemaster]

decay is very expensive to implement in terms of CPU cycles per transaction.

[fluxer555]

The decay shouldn't start immediately. People would be transaction spamming to make their votes fresh, whenever there's a close race. Maybe it should start in 6 months, and decay over the next 6 months

This would encourage delegates to do regular 'Campaigns' every half-year to get people to re-vote for them, and would provide shareholders with good summaries as to what they accomplished over the past term.

[matt608]

what do you think of "half-life voting power" ？ For instance , I vote with 1 million BTSX , after half a year or something , the votes automatically down to 0.5 million .  What's the point ? If big holder voted for a bad employee , and that voter forget his password of the wallet , that votes would've stayed there forever ....

Vote decay, interesting.  That would slowly weed out votes from long lost stake.

[Thom]

WOW!

I can see many more questions arising from this discussion about delegates and voting to add to those I've posted recently.

This really does strike at the heart of the DPoS model, as well as remind me of the reality TV shows like Survivor and Big Brother. Although the word "panopticon" is often used in the alt media to describe a self policing society and carries a negative connotation, it doesn't have to be so. Our community should be self policing / self monitoring to restrict evil doers from causing harm to others. And that requires a good system of communication and good sources of information.

Our BitShares community is shaping up to be a reflection of a global society, complete with those who promote positive and negative virtue. Let every member of this community work to build mechanisms to safeguard the positive virtue and eliminate the negative influences. That goes for devs, investors and marketers alike. We all share this ecosystem so lets not allow it to devolve where we're eating our own poo.

I'm glad BM is now quite aware of this discussion. I will be looking to him, toast and the other heavy weight thinkers in this community to address this, definitely before the BTSX client release at the end of the month but preferably ASAP.

Today is the first time reading this thread, and I find it quite disturbing.

The one good thing this turmoil has surfaced is that the DPoS system has weaknesses if we don't find a way to make voting for your desired delegates easier, but that taking control of a majority of delegates is rather hard.

I think this problem has been exacerbated by the language barrier. But that should serve as an important wake up call to BM and other devs as such issues will increase as people from other countries and languages start to use BitShares.

[fluxer555]

You should have an option for "Use extra votes as delegates recommend".  The reason I'm not using all my votes is simply that I've only had time to personally evaluate and upvote maybe 5-10 delegates who've made themselves known on the forums.

Appropriate topic of discussion for election day, heh.

[theoretical]

You should have an option for "Use extra votes as delegates recommend".  The reason I'm not using all my votes is simply that I've only had time to personally evaluate and upvote maybe 5-10 delegates who've made themselves known on the forums.

Appropriate topic of discussion for election day, heh.

[btswildpig]

Well, this has motivated me to cast my first vote and it was not an intuitive experience.

- Feedback on the voting experience -  (thought I would just post it here)

A few weeks ago I thought I had voted by simply clicking up on a bunch of delegates, but I wasn't sure as I thought a transaction was needed to cast the vote.  Since then I hedged in bitUSD several days ago, so I thought my vote had gone through then as I had made a transaction (even though I still got the message that my not all my stake was voting, I thought, well most of it must be).

But then today I updated a bunch of my votes in the 'delegate' section and downvoted (which I discover is removing the ability to vote in favour rather than a downvote) of the 5 suspect accounts here.  I then thought that I need to make a transaction to cast my vote, so I went and bought 0.1bitUSD, thinking that would do the trick.  But I did that and my account continued to say I was not voting with all my stake.  So, I kept looking and found in my account the 'update vote' button,

I didn't want to 'vote all' as that sounded like I could vote even for the delegates I had downvoted, and I didn't want a random subset as that sounded like it could include them too, so I clicked 'vote as delegates recommended', and found a bunch of delegates I didn't upvote in the delegates section were voted for.  Confused, I looked on the wiki, and saw that "vote as delegates recommend" results in voting for a delegates 'slate' I had approved.  Who's slate?  I still do not know who's 'slate' I approved and I was still getting the 'your not voting with all of your stake' message.  Where do you see and approve a delegates 'slate'?

So, I pressed on, determined to get my vote in, so I looked on the wiki and saw I needed to vote for 101 delegates to get that message to go away and that if I clicked 'vote all' it would do as I said.  So I went back to the delegates and made sure to click on at least 101 delegates, even going into the standby-delegates section to make sure I voted for enough (as some in the top 101 I didn't want to vote for, I hadn't kept count of all the ones in the top 101 I didn't want to vote for so I just had to keep voting in the sub-101 to make sure I had upvoted enough)  and then I updated my vote.  So I presume if I only clicked 100 delegates I would still get that 'not all of your stake is voting' message? 

Mission accomplished (at last).

But that was not an intuitive voting experience.  Why is the 'update vote' button not in the delegates section where the voting is done?  It would help if there was some little instructions that appear as you mouse over the 'vote all, vote none etc' so the wiki doesn't need to be read at the same time.  And what is the purpose of choosing a 'random selection'?  It seems to complicate the process pointlessly.  A user should be able to immediately understand that "vote all" means to vote for all the delegates you have approved and it should be one the same page.

Thanks for the feedback here... we do need to improve that.

what do you think of "half-life voting power" ？ For instance , I vote with 1 million BTSX , after half a year or something , the votes automatically down to 0.5 million .  What's the point ? If big holder voted for a bad employee , and that voter forget his password of the wallet , that votes would've stayed there forever ....

[bytemaster]

Well, this has motivated me to cast my first vote and it was not an intuitive experience.

- Feedback on the voting experience -  (thought I would just post it here)

A few weeks ago I thought I had voted by simply clicking up on a bunch of delegates, but I wasn't sure as I thought a transaction was needed to cast the vote.  Since then I hedged in bitUSD several days ago, so I thought my vote had gone through then as I had made a transaction (even though I still got the message that my not all my stake was voting, I thought, well most of it must be).

But then today I updated a bunch of my votes in the 'delegate' section and downvoted (which I discover is removing the ability to vote in favour rather than a downvote) of the 5 suspect accounts here.  I then thought that I need to make a transaction to cast my vote, so I went and bought 0.1bitUSD, thinking that would do the trick.  But I did that and my account continued to say I was not voting with all my stake.  So, I kept looking and found in my account the 'update vote' button,

I didn't want to 'vote all' as that sounded like I could vote even for the delegates I had downvoted, and I didn't want a random subset as that sounded like it could include them too, so I clicked 'vote as delegates recommended', and found a bunch of delegates I didn't upvote in the delegates section were voted for.  Confused, I looked on the wiki, and saw that "vote as delegates recommend" results in voting for a delegates 'slate' I had approved.  Who's slate?  I still do not know who's 'slate' I approved and I was still getting the 'your not voting with all of your stake' message.  Where do you see and approve a delegates 'slate'?

So, I pressed on, determined to get my vote in, so I looked on the wiki and saw I needed to vote for 101 delegates to get that message to go away and that if I clicked 'vote all' it would do as I said.  So I went back to the delegates and made sure to click on at least 101 delegates, even going into the standby-delegates section to make sure I voted for enough (as some in the top 101 I didn't want to vote for, I hadn't kept count of all the ones in the top 101 I didn't want to vote for so I just had to keep voting in the sub-101 to make sure I had upvoted enough)  and then I updated my vote.  So I presume if I only clicked 100 delegates I would still get that 'not all of your stake is voting' message? 

Mission accomplished (at last).

But that was not an intuitive voting experience.  Why is the 'update vote' button not in the delegates section where the voting is done?  It would help if there was some little instructions that appear as you mouse over the 'vote all, vote none etc' so the wiki doesn't need to be read at the same time.  And what is the purpose of choosing a 'random selection'?  It seems to complicate the process pointlessly.  A user should be able to immediately understand that "vote all" means to vote for all the delegates you have approved and it should be one the same page.

Thanks for the feedback here... we do need to improve that.

[freebit]

It is really simple, I will not vote for a paid position but as long as upgrades are prompt and blocks are produced he can maintain a delegate.

I am wondering why do you still vote for this guy,  he really hurt much of us.
I think many people who love this community want to  maintain  a delegate node.

Yes, shouldn't vote for him, his behavior has hurt many people  who lost a lot of money in  the Chinese community .