Author Topic: Should minebitshares' 6 delegates have multisig? (poll)  (Read 4435 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline fav

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4278
  • No Pain, No Gain
    • View Profile
    • Follow Me!
  • BitShares: fav
« Last Edit: May 19, 2015, 07:28:18 am by favdesu »

Offline Akado

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2752
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: akado
Yeah Data, I mentioned I didn't read the whole thing but I think I didn't jump to any conclusions. I'm voting dw. As for this little argument with fuzzy, if you don't have any problem with multi-sig then I don't see what's the problem here. Fuzzy prefers so, you too don't see a problem as long as you don't need to obey people's whims. Solution: get trusted signers! Or ask for the funds you need only when you need to and use them as long as you need to instead of having them all at the same time. I think either one of those could work :)

Now don't be mad at each other. We have something good going on here. We need to be self productive instead of self destructive
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode

This is not about trusting someone or not. It's about creating standards. Everyone in a position of power like that should use multi-sig in my opinion. I agree with the option of using the people who donated funds.

Data, I like what you're doing and I sincerely hope everything goes well, but this is not about trusting you or not. What kind of example are we giving to others out there? That someone can come up with a nice project, hold 5% of the network without no one around to make sure there are no problems? Things don't work like that. It's a lot of responsibility and even though I trust you, I really hope you (or anyone else in a situation like this) have zero problem with using multi-sig.

How can anyone even arguing against it? Do you even know how the crypto ecosystem works? So many bad things have happened. What keeps me from running a delegate and get everyone''s trust, ask for funds and run off with them? Nothing. People need to feel safe and voters need to know and feel they have power over the delegates, not other way around. It's just that.

I didn't read in full your arguments with fuzzy so feel free to correct me if i say anything wrong! But no one can refuse to use multi-sig in a situation like this, with the argument of "What, you don't trust me after all I've done?" That doesn't mean nothing won't happen, specially for new users. Things don't work like that. I know it can feel like people could be biting the hand that feeds them or that they are not grateful, but like I said, this is not about trusting you or not. It's about keeping things as safe as possible for everyone and also to set standards for everyone in the future that wants to do something like that. From someone else's point of view, from the exterior, people will see a BitShares where everyone is free to do whatever they want and no measures are taken to protect the ecosystem. Do you really want to be seen like that? I don't, that's for sure. It doesn't sound professional at all.

Once again, correct me if I said something wrong as I didn't read the full arguments between Data and Fuzzy. If anything, I apologize.

Other than that, I will vote for the amount of  delegates I see fit as soon as possible. Keep up the good work  +5%

____________________

Could anyone explain to me the implication of voting this or other delegates up when we're in the middle of changing the delegate's system? Is it good, bad, why?


I never refused multi-sig.. if you take the time to read my replies... what fuzz is talking about is very ambiguous at best... which leads people like you down the path you did in your position. It's all loaded without knowing the full details.


Quote
For this project these delegates are needed and 100% dedicated to the HUGE undertaking they will fulfill. What happens when we do this multisig thing.. and suddenly one of these multisig holders starts getting ideas that we should start using funds to do this that and the other that THEY think should be happening with this project.. and now we can't access funds unless they get their way. How about that? How does that make for a better situation for the use of the funds?

My argument against multi-sig is the question of who is the multi-siger and under what conditions particularly for this project?

What happens when they get their own ideas about what to do with the funds and want to take things in some other direction.. then they refuse to release the funds unless they get their way? Blackmail... complaints come pouring in.. it's my face on this, not this anonymous purse string puppet... so I get left holding the bag. These were all very general concepts and real concerns I have that were not directed at anybody in particular.

I joked earlier that he was projecting because he was a psychology major.. but then in the last reply.. he actually did project.

His response.. as you can see above where he has taken to liberty to turn my 'private' conversations into public.. was 'we could do it' ... suddenly this turned into the only way he was going to support this project was if he could have multisig control over the delegates. What he didn't include was the message he was replying too where I said I would agree to multi-sig but only of someone who is actually working on this day in day out. Then when he didn't like that response.. suddenly it turned into a public poll that you see here.. to which I replied:

"Unless there are backroom talks about me I am not aware of.. you are the one that will be creating drama turning this into a public forum poll topic.

I am not sure if the several people who put their money in to get these delegates voted in are going to like you creating all this doubt surrounding the bid.

Perhaps you might want to start there."

He said he would.. but didn't.. and went ahead and created this poll.

As Riverhead had already stated.. we are talking about limited funds.. even with 50% of all these delegates assigned to the dev work combined with paying back the original contributors it is still going to take a few months to pay for even some of the initial work to be done. Just 9 hours ago I asked for how much they would expect for a bounty to get the work done from someone else on some of the work to immediately get the pool more profitable and make some foundational improvements for future expansion.. 10BTC was the ask. 1 Delegate does about $300-$400 bitUSD  month now.

So Akado, how many are needed is completely relative to how long you want it to take for this project to grow. All 6 = a few months. 2 = end of the year maybe. Changes to the whole system are coming anyways.. this was all meant to be a measure to make things happen 'now'.. because the current state is that it's on life support and not going to perform the way it could. The community decided to step in and step up and support the plan to grow it that I presented.. then fuzz jumped in the tail end and demanded multisig control over everything when I just sent a PM asking for his vote in performing my fiduciary responsibility to the contributors. Instead I stepped on a drama landmine. A cautionary tail for others I am sure.

Further to all this.. for the record 20 minutes after this poll was started by fuzz he asked me to do a Mumble Hangout.

I replied several hours later when he turned it all into about him I suggested it would be better for BitShares to take down this thread and let us discuss everything in Mumble.

It's still here .. so there is my answer.

At this point I am more concerned with Fuzzs delegate position than I am getting these voted in with what has happened here.

« Last Edit: May 18, 2015, 04:55:58 pm by DataSecurityNode »
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
www.Peerplays.com | Decentralized Gaming Built with Graphene - Now with BookiePro and Sweeps!
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Offline Riverhead


At this point I think it's important to step back and look at the bigger, or in this case: smaller, picture.

1) At current market cap even if DSN pocketed 100% of the funds from all six delegates it wouldn't compensate for time/effort if he was an employee of the blockchain hired for the task. In a free market no one with the skills to make it work would take this position for the pay.

2) We're arguing over who gets the comfy chairs on the Titanic. BTS needs users to gain network affect and stay afloat (weee more puns). Anyone using weminebitshares creates an account. As any marketer that gives away free samples knows - if you have a good product you just need to get people using it and they'll spread the word for you.

3) Look at the current state of the federal government in most countries. They get so mired down in the ideology of a situation nothing actually gets done. Please let us not have BTS fall into that quagmire.

TL;DR - While I respect and appreciate this discussion it doesn't make sense to muddy the water at this low market cap. If the delegates get voted in or not it is enough for me. When the market cap gets above a few hundred million I'd be willing to revisit this or, more likely, support the voting out of a few of the delegates.

Offline Akado

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2752
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: akado
This is not about trusting someone or not. It's about creating standards. Everyone in a position of power like that should use multi-sig in my opinion. I agree with the option of using the people who donated funds.

Data, I like what you're doing and I sincerely hope everything goes well, but this is not about trusting you or not. What kind of example are we giving to others out there? That someone can come up with a nice project, hold 5% of the network without no one around to make sure there are no problems? Things don't work like that. It's a lot of responsibility and even though I trust you, I really hope you (or anyone else in a situation like this) have zero problem with using multi-sig.

How can anyone even arguing against it? Do you even know how the crypto ecosystem works? So many bad things have happened. What keeps me from running a delegate and get everyone''s trust, ask for funds and run off with them? Nothing. People need to feel safe and voters need to know and feel they have power over the delegates, not other way around. It's just that.

I didn't read in full your arguments with fuzzy so feel free to correct me if i say anything wrong! But no one can refuse to use multi-sig in a situation like this, with the argument of "What, you don't trust me after all I've done?" That doesn't mean nothing won't happen, specially for new users. Things don't work like that. I know it can feel like people could be biting the hand that feeds them or that they are not grateful, but like I said, this is not about trusting you or not. It's about keeping things as safe as possible for everyone and also to set standards for everyone in the future that wants to do something like that. From someone else's point of view, from the exterior, people will see a BitShares where everyone is free to do whatever they want and no measures are taken to protect the ecosystem. Do you really want to be seen like that? I don't, that's for sure. It doesn't sound professional at all.

Once again, correct me if I said something wrong as I didn't read the full arguments between Data and Fuzzy. If anything, I apologize.

Other than that, I will vote for the amount of  delegates I see fit as soon as possible. Keep up the good work  +5%

____________________

Could anyone explain to me the implication of voting this or other delegates up when we're in the middle of changing the delegate's system? Is it good, bad, why?
« Last Edit: May 18, 2015, 09:51:41 am by Akado »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline Pheonike

In a nutshell we are hiring miners with delegate pay to provide liquidity by selling their coins for bitassets.. 

Offline lil_jay890

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1197
    • View Profile
Not really sure wtf is going on, but I just made sure to thumbs down the delegates for this project until this episode of the Real World is over.

Offline fuzzy

I'll throw my 2 satoshis in here.

First, I'm not a contributor or directly involved in this project. I do think it has potential, and it has brought new people to BitShares. I've personally talked with Jonathon at length of his plans for the bunker and the challenges he faces, but not this project. I have asked gentso about his take on where mineBitShares is going and if any solid plans have been discussed to mine for PM through cryptosmith. The number of delegates being asked for is unprecedented. I don't care who or what group is the recipient for such a large pool of delegate pay, they need to be accountable.

We have been given a glimpse of the upcoming model of shareholder approval of delegates / workers / blocksigners. The delegates in that model have specific duties and roles. Yet, I don't see any info about this in DSN's proposal, or any type of roadmap for how the goals listed on the proposal will be achieved. Why such an unprecedented push now? Why not wait for the new model, or at least be forward looking to what is coming and try to fit into that? As I see it, the idea of using multisig to provide accountable oversight seems quite reasonable and would make transition to the new delegate scheme much smoother.

On a "miner" note, the name change from MineBitShares to BunkerMining takes focus away from the BitShares ecosystem. Not sure if that's beneficial to BitShares or not. It could be, if more minors come to BunkerMining b/c they are put off by BitShares. Might be a way to convert those die hard bitcoin miners into BitShares advocates. Of course sha256 support will need to be implemented first. When is that planned to occur?

It all started here.. https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,16238.0.html << The push came from the community not from me. I was very clear about the changes coming in the not so distant future.. how distant it is still remains to be seen.. my best guess is going to be a good 2-3 months. That will be long enough for this project to wither up lose all it's miners and die. I stated what I was going to do with what limited resources I had, and only offered another way if they wanted to step up and support it. Before I would let any of the contributors send me their BTS I sent them a clear terms sheet with what I would be doing with their funds, how I would pay them back, and what would happen under as many scenarios and contingencies as I could plan for. Everyone agreed without any modification 100%.

As for roadmap Thom you roapmap-zealot you :) ... this was the document rgcrypto myself and other members of the community contributed to put together: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RmKlLjuLehLUC88w5Y82B9CB_nh3dkkOEvjsYfejckc/edit?usp=sharing << I should note though that this was started with the premise we would have a market cap to support it.. as stated, that fell through, and I was forced to find ways to reinvent what to do with the scarcity of resources. Since it was created I have been in nonstop discussions daily with everyone to find more efficient pathways to make this a volume monster. Ask genso.. I was just talking to him today bout this. But either way.. nothing is going to happen without more funds... that much is clear.

What you say about the name change is correct about market penetration. The change in name was initially suggested by RGCrypto to provide consistency in the benefits to the mining pool and also to allow us to bypass some of the stigma that exists out in the mining community regarding bitshares.. particularly in terms of mining. Because some of our other offerings from the bunker related to this project will include things like rig rentals and cloud mining etc.. it made more sense rather than trying to link the existing brand. It also gives us an opportunity to recapture lost miners who tries us out but were disappointed and moved on. Existing users will not really care I think either way.

Hope that answered your questions.

Actually, after reading your post before the one that I gave a +5% to, I am questioning why you are not speaking to my points.  Or why you didn't want me to put up a poll in the first place.  You asked me for my complete backing...which you basically have had ALL the way from me (if you read into the past, you will see it was actually me who was first to express the validity of approaching this with MANY delegates to ensure YOUR success).  So my question is...Why are you not answering any of my pm's so we can iron this out like adults? 

Let's look at some facts Data...because apparently you want to question my agenda and facts prove my agenda without a shadow of a doubt:
 
1) I am not making anything from the fuzzy.beyondbitcoin delegate (might be a surprise to most here, but I actually still do not make money from what I have done alllll this time for our community---way before you got here btw). Instead, I have made a team of people who volunteered to help for little to no pay for a long time, and have rewarded them how people like me never seem to get rewarded in life: by someone giving them good karma back for the karma they spread.  Malevolence here at all?  I guess you can post a poll on it.    <---or you can even ask the Beyond Bitcoin team!


2) I and the team collectively have given 11.5% of our delegate's fees to the minebitshares project...so what "malevolent" agenda would I have here?  To waste the 11.5% that we put in to help this project?  Just to see you burn?  Ridiculous. Take a deep breath, a chill pill and really try to think this over before becoming accusatory. 


3) You asked me to really dig in and support this.  My response: "Let's get multisig setup so I can reasonably back it". 

After which you responded (which I will not put here because frankly it was supposed to be private and I prefer to respect even people who want to slight me), I responded:
"Actually if you reread through my backing I stated that we could do it.  So I will say that I would personally be more comfortable backing it that way, than if the funds just all were open.  We should have a team of trusted people to ensure your original vision of minimizing the fund usage necessary. 

We can talk. I DO want to help you.  However you need to understand I DO have plenty of skin in the game.  So there is naturally a need for me to be able to protect myself from the complaints that WILL come.  Don't be confused. 

Anyway, I'm not sure why it is such a problem getting multisig on the account.  Better yet, I'll ask in a poll.  That will give me the answers I need and we can get rid of this UNNECESSARY DRAMA."



4) I was the 1st person to express that we needed as many delegates as possible to get this up and running as a guaranteed success.  You are the one who always seemed against it, saying "I want this to be profitable on its own as soon as possible".  THAT is a respectable answer and intention.  For that, you got my good karma.  If you hadn't acted that way, I wouldn't have even brought up my idea of the potential power of utilizing an army of delegates.  But since you DID act that way...guess what, I brought it up and backed it.  (Yet again...odd sort of malevolent agenda...)


4b) You once stated that you didn't want to use a bunch of delegates, but as it became obvious that it was the correct path, you seem to not want anyone else (even those who funded your delegates) to have any say over the funding?  Let's face it, having many delegates for this is a gift to you just as much as it is for the bitshares community.  If(WHEN) this is successful, that means that the myriad other bitshares projects you have a level of control in will also gain from the prominence you gain. People will come to you as a BitShares Elite Member and you will also earn a LOT from the referral bonuses under the new proposal  If there was a single place that concerns me, ^this is it.  Because you will become over time one of the very centers of BitShares' power structure.  And that would mean you would have a great deal of power to vote me and Beyond Bitcoin out...even with THIS I have supported you. 


5)  I asked you if you would like to do a hangout this week to talk about your proposal...instead of answering me, you have ignored me and posted that I have some weird (irrational and almost self-destructive agenda).  Why?  This concerns me.  Have you so little respect for me? 


6)  I have tried to set you up with people in the past to help you and form alliances that are synergistic yet also decentralize control.  I even told you in mumble awhile back that I'd try to help you how I can.  It was your choice not to work with them.  Sure they could have been seen as "competition" but they also could have been a wonderful ally (depending on how you wished to formulate the plan). 


7)  You have not answered a question thom asked--true to his painfully honest character:  "Just saw DSN's post. Whoa, DSN, why so defensive? Where's the fire? I sense some urgency, some rush to make a decision that I don't understand. Fuzzy has been  v e r y  supportive as I see it.  I don't know, but my guess is that for such a large pool of delegates he just wants to make sure as many people in the community as possible are on board with this. I don't thing ANY other delegate proposal has requested this many 100% slots -- ever, not even the core dev team."

^This is actually something similar I think I said to you in one of my private pm's earlier today when I tried to chat with you offline (to which you never responded).  I would like you to speak to this point...because it is precisely the point I'm trying to make. 


8 ) Now to cap it all off:   "you are now venturing into manipulating public opinion about me and casting doubt on our bid for additional delegates".  Urg......*deeeeep breath*. 
Is setting up Multi-Sig for such a thing so big of an issue that we are going to cause such drama?  Who is trying to manipulate public opinion?  You ask me to put my ass on the line...I told you the conditions I thought would be reasonable for me to do it. And I NEVER expected the response I got...

*I'm sorry if I sound a bit frustrated...I sacrifice a great deal for this community and for you to turn around and try to give me BAD karma for my good-natured acts to protect the community AND your project, just hurts.  Plain and Simple.  I'm actually going to take the night off after this*

-Edit:  if you are stressed in your life Data, I hope everything is ok.  I sincerely hope you understand my points and that you can appreciate that I am here first and foremost because I've seen what terrible things happen in the real world because of power structures that are allowed to go too far.  I do this because in my heart I want to make a world where I never need to see anyone else ever blown up, babies with 3rd degree burns all over their bodies and the list is too long to describe. 

Now do I want to someday find a way to make some money from what I'm doing?  Yes...I have to support a family who supports me in my efforts here, so I'd love to be able to give something to them for their sacrifice, but that is not the reason for me being here.  But I won't sell my soul or intentionally hurt others to accomplish that goal...

We are moving into a world where it is very important for us to be Introspective--and supportive of one another in our times of need.  I am here for you even if you think I'm not--if you are in a time of need.  It just saddens me that you seem to think so little of me as to say these things publicly without even giving me the chance to explain my position and stop this ridiculousness. If you ever need me, I'll do my best to be here for you. 

« Last Edit: May 18, 2015, 02:26:34 am by fuzzy »
WhaleShares==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits and WhaleShares = Love :D

Offline BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode

I'll throw my 2 satoshis in here.

First, I'm not a contributor or directly involved in this project. I do think it has potential, and it has brought new people to BitShares. I've personally talked with Jonathon at length of his plans for the bunker and the challenges he faces, but not this project. I have asked gentso about his take on where mineBitShares is going and if any solid plans have been discussed to mine for PM through cryptosmith. The number of delegates being asked for is unprecedented. I don't care who or what group is the recipient for such a large pool of delegate pay, they need to be accountable.

We have been given a glimpse of the upcoming model of shareholder approval of delegates / workers / blocksigners. The delegates in that model have specific duties and roles. Yet, I don't see any info about this in DSN's proposal, or any type of roadmap for how the goals listed on the proposal will be achieved. Why such an unprecedented push now? Why not wait for the new model, or at least be forward looking to what is coming and try to fit into that? As I see it, the idea of using multisig to provide accountable oversight seems quite reasonable and would make transition to the new delegate scheme much smoother.

On a "miner" note, the name change from MineBitShares to BunkerMining takes focus away from the BitShares ecosystem. Not sure if that's beneficial to BitShares or not. It could be, if more minors come to BunkerMining b/c they are put off by BitShares. Might be a way to convert those die hard bitcoin miners into BitShares advocates. Of course sha256 support will need to be implemented first. When is that planned to occur?

It all started here.. https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,16238.0.html << The push came from the community not from me. I was very clear about the changes coming in the not so distant future.. how distant it is still remains to be seen.. my best guess is going to be a good 2-3 months. That will be long enough for this project to wither up lose all it's miners and die. I stated what I was going to do with what limited resources I had, and only offered another way if they wanted to step up and support it. Before I would let any of the contributors send me their BTS I sent them a clear terms sheet with what I would be doing with their funds, how I would pay them back, and what would happen under as many scenarios and contingencies as I could plan for. Everyone agreed without any modification 100%.

As for roadmap Thom you roapmap-zealot you :) ... this was the document rgcrypto myself and other members of the community contributed to put together: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RmKlLjuLehLUC88w5Y82B9CB_nh3dkkOEvjsYfejckc/edit?usp=sharing << I should note though that this was started with the premise we would have a market cap to support it.. as stated, that fell through, and I was forced to find ways to reinvent what to do with the scarcity of resources. Since it was created I have been in nonstop discussions daily with everyone to find more efficient pathways to make this a volume monster. Ask genso.. I was just talking to him today bout this. But either way.. nothing is going to happen without more funds... that much is clear.

What you say about the name change is correct about market penetration. The change in name was initially suggested by RGCrypto to provide consistency in the benefits to the mining pool and also to allow us to bypass some of the stigma that exists out in the mining community regarding bitshares.. particularly in terms of mining. Because some of our other offerings from the bunker related to this project will include things like rig rentals and cloud mining etc.. it made more sense rather than trying to link the existing brand. It also gives us an opportunity to recapture lost miners who tries us out but were disappointed and moved on. Existing users will not really care I think either way.

Hope that answered your questions.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
www.Peerplays.com | Decentralized Gaming Built with Graphene - Now with BookiePro and Sweeps!
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Offline fuzzy

Tangential question, but why is minebitshares getting public funds? Is it essentially to pay the bonus payouts (5%+) on their mining earnings? Is that seen as a marketing ploy to help bring people into bitShares? The bonus payouts help those offering mining rigs into the system, but I'm wondering how this benefits the broader BitShares community. Not asking in criticism, just for clarity.

To answer your questions:

1. It's getting public funds because it is the most effective project for referring new users to bitshares than anything else any other marketing project as ever produced.

2. The funds were meant to pay for the bonus plus the cost of the pool operation. At the time the delegate was voted in it would have worked, but then market cap fell. Prior to getting the delegate there was $50 bitUSD a day going into bonuses to make it the highest paying pool. All those funds flow right back to BitShares. At today's market cap if we used 100% of what we have we can achieve $20 a day with the 2 delegates that are 100% contributing to this (rgcrypto and minebitshares-reloaded).. and I continue to pay several hundred dollars in server resources monthly and hours everyday with zero compensation. I'm not going to continue that for long. Also, in order for us to attract miners as the most profitable pool, we need that subsidy in the short term at least until the pool grows big enough to actually become the most profitable.
 
3. Yes, this project is largely seen as a marketing play.

4. How does it help the community at large.. there are a number of ways.. as already stated, it brings new users into BitShares in a big way, it brings utility to bitUSD at present.. but in our future plans this is going to expand to both BTS and other bitAssets.. and even convert into REAL Gold and Silver. This means more volume, more liquidity, more transactions.. higher market cap for BitShares. Just think about all the alt coins and bitcoin mining or at least a good portion of it flowing to BitShares ecosystem instead of to BTC.. that's what this project does.

Overall, this is a machine to create network effect... it has only scratched the surface thus far.

Hope that helps clarify.

+5%

As for "projecting" I don't really know if that word is what I think you think it means. From a psych standpoint projecting is attributing one's own attributes (most often problematic) on others. 

From that standpoint I have made it very clear what I think so I'd prefer you change that.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2015, 12:45:49 am by fuzzy »
WhaleShares==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits and WhaleShares = Love :D

Offline BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode

Tangential question, but why is minebitshares getting public funds? Is it essentially to pay the bonus payouts (5%+) on their mining earnings? Is that seen as a marketing ploy to help bring people into bitShares? The bonus payouts help those offering mining rigs into the system, but I'm wondering how this benefits the broader BitShares community. Not asking in criticism, just for clarity.

To answer your questions:

1. It's getting public funds because it is the most effective project for referring new users to bitshares than anything else any other marketing project as ever produced.

2. The funds were meant to pay for the bonus plus the cost of the pool operation. At the time the delegate was voted in it would have worked, but then market cap fell. Prior to getting the delegate there was $50 bitUSD a day going into bonuses to make it the highest paying pool. All those funds flow right back to BitShares. At today's market cap if we used 100% of what we have we can achieve $20 a day with the 2 delegates that are 100% contributing to this (rgcrypto and minebitshares-reloaded).. and I continue to pay several hundred dollars in server resources monthly and hours everyday with zero compensation. I'm not going to continue that for long. Also, in order for us to attract miners as the most profitable pool, we need that subsidy in the short term at least until the pool grows big enough to actually become the most profitable.
 
3. Yes, this project is largely seen as a marketing play.

4. How does it help the community at large.. there are a number of ways.. as already stated, it brings new users into BitShares in a big way, it brings utility to bitUSD at present.. but in our future plans this is going to expand to both BTS and other bitAssets.. and even convert into REAL Gold and Silver. This means more volume, more liquidity, more transactions.. higher market cap for BitShares. Just think about all the alt coins and bitcoin mining or at least a good portion of it flowing to BitShares ecosystem instead of to BTC.. that's what this project does.

Overall, this is a machine to create network effect... it has only scratched the surface thus far.

Hope that helps clarify.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
www.Peerplays.com | Decentralized Gaming Built with Graphene - Now with BookiePro and Sweeps!
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Offline Thom

I'll throw my 2 satoshis in here.

First, I'm not a contributor or directly involved in this project. I do think it has potential, and it has brought new people to BitShares. I've personally talked with Jonathon at length of his plans for the bunker and the challenges he faces, but not this project. I have asked gentso about his take on where mineBitShares is going and if any solid plans have been discussed to mine for PM through cryptosmith. The number of delegates being asked for is unprecedented. I don't care who or what group is the recipient for such a large pool of delegate pay, they need to be accountable.

We have been given a glimpse of the upcoming model of shareholder approval of delegates / workers / blocksigners. The delegates in that model have specific duties and roles. Yet, I don't see any info about this in DSN's proposal, or any type of roadmap for how the goals listed on the proposal will be achieved. Why such an unprecedented push now? Why not wait for the new model, or at least be forward looking to what is coming and try to fit into that? As I see it, the idea of using multisig to provide accountable oversight seems quite reasonable and would make transition to the new delegate scheme much smoother.

On a "miner" note, the name change from MineBitShares to BunkerMining takes focus away from the BitShares ecosystem. Not sure if that's beneficial to BitShares or not. It could be, if more minors come to BunkerMining b/c they are put off by BitShares. Might be a way to convert those die hard bitcoin miners into BitShares advocates. Of course sha256 support will need to be implemented first. When is that planned to occur?

Edit: Just saw DSN's post. Whoa, DSN, why so defensive? Where's the fire? I sense some urgency, some rush to make a decision that I don't understand.  Fuzzy has been  v e r y  supportive as I see it.  I don't know, but my guess is that for such a large pool of delegates he just wants to make sure as many people in the community as possible are on board with this. I don't thing ANY other delegate proposal has requested this many 100% slots -- ever, not even the core dev team.

Frankly I can't figure out why the shareholders of this community endorse one delegate and not others. I welcome the forthcoming changes and am hoping they will improve DPoS in terms of directing delegate pay and providing more formalized voting and accountability. I also hope it will encourage candidates to provide better proposals that include a roadmap or basically a business plan on how the proposal will be carried out and provide adequate info to shareholders that allow them to know whether their support should continue or be pulled back.

I wish you the best of luck Jonathon in reaching your goals, but I don't think it's fair to fuzzy or will help you reach your goals to be so defensive.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2015, 12:31:35 am by Thom »
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere - MLK |  Verbaltech2 Witness Reports: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,23902.0.html

Offline BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode

I have full confidence in datasecuritynode's integrity. He's been completely transparent, communicated effectively and seems highly competent. I voted to trust him. However, multisig with bts contributors is a great idea fuzzy and might help data to manage risk....

I am not worried about Data personally.  I have said this many times already.  My main reason for posting the poll has been explained.  It seems like I can back it fully without multisig from most everyone's perspective who has commented.  If I look at the poll though and I split the neutrals in half I come up with a slightly different answer.  I want to get to the heart of the community's thinking on this.  So I appreciate you guys giving feedback--that is the entire reason I posted this. 

However, 17 people is not quite enough to really give me a representative sample imho.  Many polls we have put up in the past end up with 80+ votes.  Of course this usually takes a few days so I will keep that in consideration. 

I have stayed out of this thread to let it hash out.. pun intended :)

I think you got your answer fuzz.. we got as much participation in this poll as I did in the first one I started asking about if they would vote in one delegate or more.

At this point it appears you are projecting. :)

Regardless.. everyone has already expressed their option and are confident in their funds being used as needed.

Now though with this 'unfuzz' stuff ... you are now venturing into manipulating public opinion about me and casting doubt on our bid for additional delegates. The people with the money in this were provided a detailed agreement providing multiple contingencies. They are happy, I have performed exactly as promised.. what's the real agenda here you got here fuzz? The public spoke, but you don't seem to want to listen.. instead you start turning the conversation where nobody else did.

For this project these delegates are needed and 100% dedicated to the HUGE undertaking they will fulfill. What happens when we do this multisig thing.. and suddenly one of these multisig holders starts getting ideas that we should start using funds to do this that and the other that THEY think should be happening with this project.. and now we can't access funds unless they get their way. How about that? How does that make for a better situation for the use of the funds?

Every single day I am processing payments.. it takes me nearly 2 hours every day. I use a spreadsheet where I cut an paste withdrawals and deposits from the day.. add the bonus and then the formula provides a cut paste for me to then apply to the payout wallet. This was all provided to me by Nethy because that is how he did it too. That's what I do now.. I can share that sheet with anybody and they can see how much bonus went out everyday..is $10 a day from the delegate really warranting this? When we get the other delegates voted in this won't be the process for long though.

In the future payout system once we have it developed I want some kind of transparency.. not so much for voters but more so for miners so they can trust in what we claim is what we are delivering. I have had numerous conversations about this with programmers and people providing feedback to the project. In that we will separate out our mining earnings from our bonus payouts. What happens when in this multisig situation suddenly I can't payout the bonuses?

Delegates are a temporary measure.. as I stated and planned for from the beginning.. and as it should be. The funds got no where else to go but to this project with me.. others who might have another agenda and hold the funds hostage because they have their own ideas I see as a threat to the project. People are going to know really quick if the funds are not going where they need to be because the steps we need to take in development have short milestones. People may not know what really happens in a multisig situation where the project was blackmailed into sending funds to something else because of some other agenda that derails us from the stated plan... but with my face on this project I am the one that is going to take the hurt on that.. no thanks.

Thanks again to all of you for expressing your confidence in me.. I will continue to work hard on getting the delegates voted in so we can take this project to the next level.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
www.Peerplays.com | Decentralized Gaming Built with Graphene - Now with BookiePro and Sweeps!
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Offline starspirit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 948
  • Financial markets pro over 20 years
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: starspirit
Tangential question, but why is minebitshares getting public funds? Is it essentially to pay the bonus payouts (5%+) on their mining earnings? Is that seen as a marketing ploy to help bring people into bitShares? The bonus payouts help those offering mining rigs into the system, but I'm wondering how this benefits the broader BitShares community. Not asking in criticism, just for clarity.

Offline fuzzy

the risk that jonathan is running away with the funds is minimal as well, because the miners will complain instantly.

so, i think not a big deal if they don't use multisig.


Unfuzzy here...I am controlling Fuzzy's account for the moment.  I am playing Devil's advocate: 
1) "Even if the miners complain instantly it wouldn't change anything if the pool fails and John and his ultra evil team at bunkerville decide they want to keep the remaining BTS."
2) "Miners will not complain if he keeps the extra BTS that is not used...only the original BTS holders will complain."

devils advocate again

1. how could anyone account how the funds are used? this would be a nightmare.

Unfuzzy:
How would it?  Can we not see the payouts each day?  Can we not see how profitable the pool would be and then see the additional funds that required as an addon? Shouldn't this number of delegates come with some level of open accountability?

Nethyb figured out how many delegates he would need to keep it running before and idiot fuzzy apparently completely overlooked his bid. Nethy had to pay out somewhere in the realm of 500 a month just to keep it up...and that was out of pocket (what an epic fail fuzzy made overlooking that project early on eh?)
WhaleShares==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits and WhaleShares = Love :D