Author Topic: My preferred solution for delegates  (Read 11941 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline maqifrnswa

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 661
    • View Profile
I am still worried about voter apathy a bit. It could make getting good delegate teams in, and bad ones out, difficult. Corporations handle this by making the default vote, "vote with the board of directors." Otherwise it may be difficult to execute buybacks/mergers/acquisitions if a vocal minority can dominate the cast ballots.

I have long said that if you are willing to download a wallet from someone then you trust them with your money.  To that end wallet developers should select a default delegate slate to follow. 

This has the effect of "centralizing" effective control over delegate selection to the dev team unless users opt to vote on their own.    So the dev team can be fired, but only by intentional mutiny.

Yes, that makes sense - could such an interface be built into the reference wallet? Like "delegates.json" which can be edited by whomever is doing the distribution? Then you choose who represents you buy who you download the client from.

This prevents people hacking the code and can make who is in the default slate more transparent. I can hack it, but I think it would be better if everyone used the same base (so it's easier for SEGs to verify) but with a transparent tweak.
maintains an Ubuntu PPA: https://launchpad.net/~showard314/+archive/ubuntu/bitshares [15% delegate] wallet_account_set_approval maqifrnswa true [50% delegate] wallet_account_set_approval delegate1.maqifrnswa true

Offline hpenvy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 451
    • View Profile
The term delegate is already bound to refer to the consensus model because we are trying to sell DPOS vs POW. This means "value-producing delegates" should be called" workers" with "proposals", as has been discussed at length. I think it will happen eventually.

Couldn't agree more.
=============
btsx address: hpenvy
Tips appreciated for good work

Offline toast

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4001
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: nikolai
The term delegate is already bound to refer to the consensus model because we are trying to sell DPOS vs POW. This means "value-producing delegates" should be called" workers" with "proposals", as has been discussed at length. I think it will happen eventually.
Do not use this post as information for making any important decisions. The only agreements I ever make are informal and non-binding. Take the same precautions as when dealing with a compromised account, scammer, sockpuppet, etc.

Offline pseudoscops


I am curious.

I have a question... a bit wordy but hopefully a bit clear too..

Why do you think a talented person would give their time to prove themselves so that they are confident in the gamble of 2 weeks wages where they have to work free for 2 weeks to break even? 

Is that making good use of inflation ... ?

⇈ This

All these outsourcing to Bitsuperlabs reeks of Bitcoin mining centralisation. Block producing should be made easy and encouraged to be as spread out as possible. The one person one delegate rule should also be implemented, even if it may not be enforceable.

Currently, lets say I come with some plan which would boost Bitshares popularity. I need some money to implement it, and I also need to get paid. So what do I do?

1. Start learning how to produce blocks reliably, or go hunting for a producer. If I care for the network I will avois stuff like Bitsuperlab and will have to spend time and effort looking for an individual.
2. I put forward my proposal.
3. I try raising money to register the delegate.
4. After elected I do my job as well as monitor my producer. If I do my task well but the producer doesn't then I get fired.

⇈ and this

I also can't help but feel that we are tending towards unnecessary centralization as I posted in my wall of text earlier in this thread. My gut tells me that early adopters and potential developers, unfamiliar with BitShares but familair with Bitcoin, will want to see a system that is easier to explain, simpler and more transparent for the basic function of securing blocks. Not a system that will become entangled in politics, community, renumeration concerns and the opinions of the most vocal. Why should block signing have anything to do with who you can convince to support you in your idea for value creation?  I mean look at how this has already become a somewhat divisive topic even between those who get Bitshares.

I fear that your average potential blockchain developer or wanabee DAC employee will just understand Ethereum's math based approach, perhaps they'll even be more attracted to it on first blush. I suspect that most won't really be aware of or get the POWaste argument yet and think that there's nothing wrong with POW. We might lose them due to the complexity of how we are proposing BitShares blocks gets signed.

I know I suggested some form of nested transparency earlier on in this thread for employees/workers withing the 101 delegates/teams if we follow the proposed route, but the more I think about the more I think the two things should be separate.

Perhaps I'm just not seeing the big picture, but nobody has effectively explained to me why we need to create this chimera of two entirely separate functions within one delegate entity. Read my earlier post in this thread to perhaps unpick why I'm yet to 'see the light' on this. I want to be a convert, but I'm just not seeing it yet. I'm suspecting some will answer - well this is how you implement a system for free market value creation on the blockchain. Market forces and all that. If that's the answer then I still don't get why the two things can't be separate?

I have no idea of the practicalities of how a separation of delegates would be implemented. Can we not just define two different types of paid delegates? Block Signing Delegates (101) and Value Producing Delegates (Unlimited). Simples  :)

Offline bytemaster

I am still worried about voter apathy a bit. It could make getting good delegate teams in, and bad ones out, difficult. Corporations handle this by making the default vote, "vote with the board of directors." Otherwise it may be difficult to execute buybacks/mergers/acquisitions if a vocal minority can dominate the cast ballots.

I have long said that if you are willing to download a wallet from someone then you trust them with your money.  To that end wallet developers should select a default delegate slate to follow. 

This has the effect of "centralizing" effective control over delegate selection to the dev team unless users opt to vote on their own.    So the dev team can be fired, but only by intentional mutiny.
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline maqifrnswa

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 661
    • View Profile
I am still worried about voter apathy a bit. It could make getting good delegate teams in, and bad ones out, difficult. Corporations handle this by making the default vote, "vote with the board of directors." Otherwise it may be difficult to execute buybacks/mergers/acquisitions if a vocal minority can dominate the cast ballots.
maintains an Ubuntu PPA: https://launchpad.net/~showard314/+archive/ubuntu/bitshares [15% delegate] wallet_account_set_approval maqifrnswa true [50% delegate] wallet_account_set_approval delegate1.maqifrnswa true

Offline matt608

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 878
    • View Profile
What if delegates become trusted with dilution after a certain amount of time in the top 101.  No fee, just a 'time fee'.

E.g. After 3 months or 6 months in the top 101 a delegate can increase their pay to 100%. 

Once they reach that threshold they become a "trusted" delegate, trusted with dilution, due to not being voted out for so long.

Employees can ask a trusted delegate to fund them.  The trusted delegate has to decide whether to increase their pay to fund the employee and risk the wrath of the voters or not.  They would consult the community on what to do.  They don't have to do anything, but funding a good employee could strengthen their position.

Multiple delegates could choose to fund the same employee or employee team.

There could be a link/alert in the client to the employee's info from the trusted delegate's listing so voters don't just vote down the trusted delegate due to the pay rise without thinking.

A trusted delegate could have a colour band (green) added to their listing in the client.
Trusted delegates don't automatically get 100% pay, but they can choose to add it at their own risk.

It could even be done in stages, e.g. after 3 months they have dilution ability of 50%, after 6 months, 100%.
« Last Edit: November 12, 2014, 05:29:29 pm by matt608 »

Offline monsterer

Why do you think a talented person would give their time to prove themselves so that they are confident in the gamble of 2 weeks wages where they have to work free for 2 weeks to break even? 

Is that making good use of inflation ... ?

To be honest, its a huge risk. The only way to mitigate it is through crowd-funding the fee, so you drum up support for the voting process as well as distributing the risk among your supporters.

For me it wasn't even an option to front the cost myself, as I don't have a grand and a bit lying around spare.
My opinions do not represent those of metaexchange unless explicitly stated.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile
What we need is a script that will burn fees daily that we can verify.

I feel like I asked this question before but... can we verify burned funds yet ?

This still has problems, the main one being there are not enough people willing to watch everyone.. but the verifiable burning ability needs to be in place first.

This way I could #1 create a delegate at 100%.  #2 when elected I just burn all funds or maybe 99%.  Whatever.  #3 When we know what has most value, I can stop burning and provide accountability towards that goal (instead of accountability of burning).

1,2,3.... what am I missing.  Too many control freaks though. Too many managers with expectations too high.


Bad idea?  Good idea?
To be honest if one hasn't prove himself yet, I won't vote on him..

I am curious.

I have a question... a bit wordy but hopefully a bit clear too..

Why do you think a talented person would give their time to prove themselves so that they are confident in the gamble of 2 weeks wages where they have to work free for 2 weeks to break even? 

Is that making good use of inflation ... ?
I speak for myself and only myself.

Offline abit

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4664
    • View Profile
    • Abit's Hive Blog
  • BitShares: abit
  • GitHub: abitmore
What we need is a script that will burn fees daily that we can verify.

I feel like I asked this question before but... can we verify burned funds yet ?

This still has problems, the main one being there are not enough people willing to watch everyone.. but the verifiable burning ability needs to be in place first.

This way I could #1 create a delegate at 100%.  #2 when elected I just burn all funds or maybe 99%.  Whatever.  #3 When we know what has most value, I can stop burning and provide accountability towards that goal (instead of accountability of burning).

1,2,3.... what am I missing.  Too many control freaks though. Too many managers with expectations too high.


Bad idea?  Good idea?
To be honest if one hasn't prove himself yet, I won't vote on him..
 
BitShares committee member: abit
BitShares witness: in.abit

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile
All these outsourcing to Bitsuperlabs reeks of Bitcoin mining centralisation. Block producing should be made easy and encouraged to be as spread out as possible. The one person one delegate rule should also be implemented, even if it may not be enforceable.

Currently, lets say I come with some plan which would boost Bitshares popularity. I need some money to implement it, and I also need to get paid. So what do I do?

1. Start learning how to produce blocks reliably, or go hunting for a producer. If I care for the network I will avois stuff like Bitsuperlab and will have to spend time and effort looking for an individual.
2. I put forward my proposal.
3. I try raising money to register the delegate.
4. After elected I do my job as well as monitor my producer. If I do my task well but the producer doesn't then I get fired.

Also I agree about this reeking of centralization. 

I started out volunteering to help non-technical people be delegates after Stan pushed it.  I even talked to Agent86 about it via skype... he asked me if I had met anyone in an effort to vet me.. fair enough, had to worry about his rep..  can't blame him there.. don't want to hurt rep of yourself,  absolutely no doubt about that.

I ended up doing it for no one.  I also had no appreciation for the number of hardforks.  I was more interested in scaling the process in some regard.  However scaling in this manner leads to centralization and a huge source of FUD.

Wow how things have changed in past few months!
I speak for myself and only myself.

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile
What we need is a script that will burn fees daily that we can verify.

I feel like I asked this question before but... can we verify burned funds yet ?

This still has problems, the main one being there are not enough people willing to watch everyone.. but the verifiable burning ability needs to be in place first.

This way I could #1 create a delegate at 100%.  #2 when elected I just burn all funds or maybe 99%.  Whatever.  #3 When we know what has most value, I can stop burning and provide accountability towards that goal (instead of accountability of burning).

1,2,3.... what am I missing.  Too many control freaks though. Too many managers with expectations too high.


Bad idea?  Good idea?

Burn operations are visible as such on the blockchain, and there's a message field that's publicly visible unlike the memo messages, so they're definitely verifiable.

An example:

http://bitsharesblocks.com/blocks/block?id=555294

Ok so someone makes a script to diff burn rates day 2 day and post them in a thread ? 
I speak for myself and only myself.

Offline svk

What we need is a script that will burn fees daily that we can verify.

I feel like I asked this question before but... can we verify burned funds yet ?

This still has problems, the main one being there are not enough people willing to watch everyone.. but the verifiable burning ability needs to be in place first.

This way I could #1 create a delegate at 100%.  #2 when elected I just burn all funds or maybe 99%.  Whatever.  #3 When we know what has most value, I can stop burning and provide accountability towards that goal (instead of accountability of burning).

1,2,3.... what am I missing.  Too many control freaks though. Too many managers with expectations too high.


Bad idea?  Good idea?

Burn operations are visible as such on the blockchain, and there's a message field that's publicly visible unlike the memo messages, so they're definitely verifiable.

An example:

http://bitsharesblocks.com/blocks/block?id=555294
Worker: dev.bitsharesblocks

sumantso

  • Guest
All these outsourcing to Bitsuperlabs reeks of Bitcoin mining centralisation. Block producing should be made easy and encouraged to be as spread out as possible. The one person one delegate rule should also be implemented, even if it may not be enforceable.

Currently, lets say I come with some plan which would boost Bitshares popularity. I need some money to implement it, and I also need to get paid. So what do I do?

1. Start learning how to produce blocks reliably, or go hunting for a producer. If I care for the network I will avois stuff like Bitsuperlab and will have to spend time and effort looking for an individual.
2. I put forward my proposal.
3. I try raising money to register the delegate.
4. After elected I do my job as well as monitor my producer. If I do my task well but the producer doesn't then I get fired.

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile
What we need is a script that will burn fees daily that we can verify.

I feel like I asked this question before but... can we verify burned funds yet ?

This still has problems, the main one being there are not enough people willing to watch everyone.. but the verifiable burning ability needs to be in place first.

This way I could #1 create a delegate at 100%.  #2 when elected I just burn all funds or maybe 99%.  Whatever.  #3 When we know what has most value, I can stop burning and provide accountability towards that goal (instead of accountability of burning).

1,2,3.... what am I missing.  Too many control freaks though. Too many managers with expectations too high.


Bad idea?  Good idea?
« Last Edit: November 12, 2014, 09:59:20 am by gamey »
I speak for myself and only myself.