Author Topic: BTS  (Read 2755 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline BitcoinJesus2.O

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 15
    • View Profile
BTS
« on: August 18, 2015, 06:58:09 am »
 :)
« Last Edit: March 09, 2018, 05:41:19 am by BitcoinJesus2.O »

Offline Ander

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3506
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Ander
Given that it is only for votes on proposals, and thus it cannot really be used for an attack very well, this could probably work and help reduce BTS supply.   I like burning better than just locking up, it has a lot more impact I think.   People who lock up were those who didnt expect to want to sell anyway.

The correct answer is the one that maximizes profit (incentivizes people enough that they want to burn, but not so much that they can just burn a tiny amount and get what they want), and also doesn't allow fraudulent activities like setting up a bad proposal to get paid X shares for doing nothing and then voting it in by burning less than X shares.  (This probably cant happen unless the multiple is very large).

I voted 10x as a guess at what would work well, but I really dont know.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads


Offline santaclause102

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2486
    • View Profile
In effort to become profitable, and supply users with more degrees of freedom than any other community, Bytemaster just let us know that we can "sell hard fork votes" (votes on proposals)(not votes for delegates or parameter changes) by either burning BTS, or locking BTS up for a pre-determined period.   

Such an initiative would only affect "which proposals get funded next" while simultaneously funding development and temporarily reducing BTS supply.  Since these additional purchased votes cannot be used to elect the delegates that set the proposals in motion, or vote on changing any internal parameters (both of which could potentially steer BitShares in a negative direction), there cannot be any negative influence on the system becasue the community obviously supports each and every proposal to some degree otherwise the delegates would be fired.

This is just another way that we can monetize the time and money of our community that does not create any avenue for bad actors to hurt our community.

Here are BM's own words from an initial thread I created without knowing that BM could indeed limit the purchased votes to"

"just allowing them to be applied to the proposal voting process"

(and not actually be used for delegate or parameter voting both of which are critical to the security of the system)

"Proposal voting" is like choosing which flavor of ice cream you want:  one positive and harmless outcome vs another positive and harmless, but different, outcome.

We can set the parameters based on the cost of one or more proposal votes.

You can also vote to "defund a worker" at any time.   

The examples in the OP are not realistic unless you are referring to a hard-fork decision.   But even that requires massive consensus prior to, during, and after.   

It really comes down to this:

1. what is the value of a vote?
2. what is the value of locking up funds?

If we knew the value of a "vote", then we could simply sell additional votes in exchange for burned stake.    Someone with 100M BTS may be willing to burn 1M BTS to double their vote it it will cause their remaining 99M BTS to rise in value or prevent it from falling in value.   

Locking up funds means the individual looses liquidity, which has some non-0 value.   If everyone with BTS was forced to lock up their funds for 90 days except delegate pay, then delegate pay would be the only source of liquid BTS which would make it more valuable.   Hence, locking up funds has some non-0 value to those with liquid funds.   It would be like EtherCoin being valued higher than ETH because it was liquid while ETH was not.   

So shareholders have to balance these complex valuations when they set policy.   

If we pay people to lock up funds today it can increase the potential purchasing power of the funds we pay to witnesses/delegates/workers today.   In effect, is paying interest to borrow money from the future.
assuming you refer to the last mumble hangout with BM wasn't the proposal to get more votes for locking up BTS instead of for selling them?

Offline Ben Mason

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1070
  • Integrity & Innovation, powered by Bitshares
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: benjojo
I also put x10 but as I don't know the bts distribution per person, like Ander, I feel it's a bit of a guess.

Also, burning should be awarded more votes than locking up. Can we have both?

Offline fav

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4272
  • No Pain, No Gain
    • View Profile
    • Follow Me!
  • BitShares: fav
almost no-one is going to burn their funds without a certain agenda. and do we want people to have the power alone to force their proposals?
Join us on Telegram: https://t.me/btstalk

Offline EstefanTT

I like it more this way, just for proposals.

I think this poll should come after another asking people if they think it's a good idea.

Somethink like :

O - yes, ASAP
O - no, never
O - let's discuss it afterthe release of bts 2.0

When I read that, I feel like it's been already decided.

IMHO, it's a good idea but I feel there is no need to rush it.
Bit20, the cryptocurrency index fund http://www.bittwenty.com
(BitShares French ConneXion - www.bitsharesfcx.com)

Offline freedom

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 302
    • View Profile
I voted 2x,why not have 1x and 0X .

Offline mint chocolate chip

... there cannot be any negative influence on the system...
That is a bold statement. Maybe we just haven't thought of any yet...
« Last Edit: August 18, 2015, 02:35:10 pm by mint chocolate chip »

Offline Empirical1.2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1366
    • View Profile
« Last Edit: August 18, 2015, 02:14:28 pm by Empirical1.2 »
If you want to take the island burn the boats

Offline BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode

I think I get it.. I maybe wrong.. but I seem to recall that the power to down vote will be introduced in 2.0 as well. Not just say YES, but say NO also.

Say an incumbent worker has a contract to impliment something that I have a competing one for.. mine is called bitWidget his is eWidget. The contract is worth far more than the value of the votes being cast for it.. Would this not enable me to 'buy' my proposal in either by way of directly voting my own in through the burn.. or voting NO to the other guy to make him appear to be weak and limp in his public support?

If I had 10X the vote power by doing a burn like that.. I could significantly swing the vote in my favor to get the contract.

What am I missing here where this scenario would not likely happen if burning BTS yielded that much greater of significance change in vote power on workers?
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
www.Peerplays.com | Decentralized Gaming Built with Graphene - Now with BookiePro!
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Offline Pheonike

Why not just make it an option and give the user the choice of how much they want to burn in addition to their vote.  A person votes as normal, but then they can add influence. The influence is the choice of how much you would burn to influence your outcome.  The amount you are willing to burn is locked until the voting is over. If your choice wins, the shares are burned, if not then they are released. The influence vote is worth some multiple of the a regularly vote.

You can think of influence like lobbying except the the whole community get the payout.
« Last Edit: August 18, 2015, 11:09:09 pm by Pheonike »

Offline Ander

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3506
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Ander
I think I get it.. I maybe wrong.. but I seem to recall that the power to down vote will be introduced in 2.0 as well. Not just say YES, but say NO also.

Say an incumbent worker has a contract to impliment something that I have a competing one for.. mine is called bitWidget his is eWidget. The contract is worth far more than the value of the votes being cast for it.. Would this not enable me to 'buy' my proposal in either by way of directly voting my own in through the burn.. or voting NO to the other guy to make him appear to be weak and limp in his public support?

If I had 10X the vote power by doing a burn like that.. I could significantly swing the vote in my favor to get the contract.

What am I missing here where this scenario would not likely happen if burning BTS yielded that much greater of significance change in vote power on workers?

This is why the multiplier needs to not be set too high.

(And if its too low no one will burn, so we must find the good middle ground).
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline mint chocolate chip

The current voting results are transparent until the voting period ends is it not? So voting very late in the process and burning only if necessary will be what ends up happpening. #unintendedconsequences

Offline Ander

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3506
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Ander
The current voting results are transparent until the voting period ends is it not? So voting very late in the process and burning only if necessary will be what ends up happpening. #unintendedconsequences

Thats not a problem if there is no end date on elections. 
If they work like current delegate votes do, then if you get enough votes for one project it will be "in" and getting paid, but then if you burn for a different project then it will become "in" and getting paid. 

Is that how it works?  Or not.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads