Initial Witness Pay & Number of Witnesses

[puppies]

I think we should be very careful not to underestimate the problem we could have with perception if we go with too few witnesses.  Perception is everything when it comes to valuation, so why take a chance?  I would rather see us err on the side of too many witnesses than too few. 

Also, I think at least at the outset, people will want to become witnesses *not* because they will make $300 per month, but because they want to be a part of something meaningful, and because they have a stake and therefore want to participate in securing the network.  Maybe someday the pay rate can be high enough to act as a real incentive, but for now why don't we set the pay as low as we need to in order to have as many witnesses as possible without diluting too much? 

With that in mind, why not shoot for somewhere between 51-101 witnesses at an initial payrate in the $50-100 range, for a total cost of $5100-10100?  Also, maybe we should consider fixing the pay in BTS terms so the pay will automatically scale up with the value of BTS, while the rate of dilution associated with witness pay will remain fixed.  We could also specify a floor and a cap in dollar terms so the pay never goes below a certain dollar amount (i.e. cost of running server) if BTS should drop in price, and also so pay never becomes excessive when BTS becomes much more valuable.

I agree with you on perception.  50k bts per month is going to be a lot less enticing if our market cap falls back down to 8M.  I'd rather have a lower amount of bts with a higher market cap any day.  Empirical is right that our current market cap is due to crypto speculators. And ander is right that our price is currently out biggest marketing point.  We could shoot ourselves in the foot if we ignore the demographic that is currently buying bts. 

In regards to number.  I don't think there are currently 101 qualified individuals or groups to run witness nodes.  On the high end there might be 50.  I like alts idea of making a list of individuals and going from there.

Witness pay is set in bts and can be adjusted by committee members as needed depending on price fluctuations.

[tbone]

I think we should be very careful not to underestimate the problem we could have with perception if we go with too few witnesses.  Perception is everything when it comes to valuation, so why take a chance?  I would rather see us err on the side of too many witnesses than too few. 

Also, I think at least at the outset, people will want to become witnesses *not* because they will make $300 per month, but because they want to be a part of something meaningful, and because they have a stake and therefore want to participate in securing the network.  Maybe someday the pay rate can be high enough to act as a real incentive, but for now why don't we set the pay as low as we need to in order to have as many witnesses as possible without diluting too much? 

With that in mind, why not shoot for somewhere between 51-101 witnesses at an initial payrate in the $50-100 range, for a total cost of $5100-10100?  Also, maybe we should consider fixing the pay in BTS terms so the pay will automatically scale up with the value of BTS, while the rate of dilution associated with witness pay will remain fixed.  We could also specify a floor and a cap in dollar terms so the pay never goes below a certain dollar amount (i.e. cost of running server) if BTS should drop in price, and also so pay never becomes excessive when BTS becomes much more valuable. 

[BTSdac]

the number doesn't really matter!

if we lower, we will get attact.

so i am not worried about this.

my questions are:

1. how does we guarentee that all 17 witnesses are unic?
2. if they all run on amazon, i don't call us decentraliced, because this gigant can shut all witnesses easily out.

I like the number 42 - because it is the answer for anything!

a great car run with speed 40km/s sometimes , it not mean this car cannot run with speed 200 km/s
 so  I think though all witnesses run on amazon , it does not mean it is non-decentralized,  it just mean at current exchange fee cannot support run a server in local ,   but the decentralized decentralized support run a server in local

[Shentist]

the number doesn't really matter!

if we lower, we will get attact.

so i am not worried about this.

my questions are:

1. how does we guarentee that all 17 witnesses are unic?
2. if they all run on amazon, i don't call us decentraliced, because this gigant can shut all witnesses easily out.

I like the number 42 - because it is the answer for anything!

[fav]

I think something around 20 is fine. with a max of 30 and min 15

[BTSdac]

I think  the following thing should consider
1.decentralied
      BTC is much decentralied if all miner mine btc by p2p , but actually the top 5 mine pool can decide any thing of bts ,if they unite,
but why less people think btc is decentralied, because no upper limit of mine pool
 so it is not a good idea to set a low upper limit of witnesses ,
2.efficiency and cost
      as a exchange and payment system , we need high efficiency and low cost ,  if the the amount of actual witnesses is  too larger , it would influence
      efficiency , since there is one witness is working for producing block  any time .
3....

so I suggest that  set a larger upper limit of  witnesses, like  35 or 51, but actual witnesses is not too much , eg 17 or 21 
there is a mechanism to make there is a small amount of actual witnesses to keep high efficiency .
is it a trick of this mechanism?  No. this is not , the high upper limit of witnessed is to keep the safety when there is  attack
 

[tonyk]

Obviously - 101 at the current pay rate (3%) and let the voters voter on the numbers of witnesses/pay rate.

[Empirical1.2]

Yes but I believe decentralisation adds value by providing protection from things like government interference, but you seem to view the power of the state over the modern financial system as largely omnipotent, challenging it futile, and decentralisation therefore redundant. I think Identabit takes a similar view.

I think the BTS business model still revolves around providing privacy and financial freedom at a level that may ultimately be unpopular with some and therefore being effectively decentralised & geographically diverse to protect from interference is not redundant imo.

Thats the point of making the network more dynamic. If it ever comes to the point that a government bands this technology we will be able to pivot accordingly. Right now governments know little to nothing about bitshares and it would take months for them decide on policy measures. To initially have more than 11 witnesses is redundant. Do you really think that you can't have geographically diverse set of 11 delegates?

I disagree. I believe governments are closely monitoring  developments particularly regarding BitCurrencies.

I personally view 11 as too few and I think the market will too. The smaller the group the larger the possibility for collusion too, I believe.

[clout]

Yes but I believe decentralisation adds value by providing protection from things like government interference, but you seem to view the power of the state over the modern financial system as largely omnipotent, challenging it futile, and decentralisation therefore redundant. I think Identabit takes a similar view.

I think the BTS business model still revolves around providing privacy and financial freedom at a level that may ultimately be unpopular with some and therefore being effectively decentralised & geographically diverse to protect from interference is not redundant imo.

Thats the point of making the network more dynamic. If it ever comes to the point that a government bands this technology we will be able to pivot accordingly. Right now governments know little to nothing about bitshares and it would take months for them decide on policy measures. To initially have more than 11 witnesses is redundant. Do you really think that you can't have geographically diverse set of 11 delegates?

[mike623317]

We need to walk before we can run. I absolutely agree with BMs recommendation.

[Empirical1.2]

I think 17's too much initially. I don't see why we need more than 11.

Bitshares perception problem has less to do with centralized nature of system and more to do with the fact that the windows GUI didn't work very well.

We need to stop think in terms of bitcoin and what people with in the bitcoin community think about centralization vs decentralization or how a blockchain can and can't be used.

Well I know you don't really believe in the value of decentralisation at all, so you'd be happy with just 1... 

@Helikopterben The premise of a blockchain is not decentralization it is information symmetry, which allows for participants in the network to more efficiently work together and manage risks. I don't think you understand how our financial system works. The government dictates property rights and there is no way around that particularly in the information age where most property is digitally recorded. I don't care if there is a central authority that controls the blockchain so long as the inherent transparency of the blockchain ensures that entity is accountable for their breach of protocol. In the end you're vision is not practical by any measure. So long as we have national governments we won't see it play out since governments will always seek to control the flow of capital within their borders, for security and policy reasons.

I believe in decentralization as it pertains to the division of labor. That is to say I think decentralization should be used for the purpose of added efficiency not redundancy. But maybe I'm thinking too pragmatically.

Yes but I believe decentralisation adds value by providing protection from things like government interference, but you seem to view the power of the state over the modern financial system as largely omnipotent, challenging it futile, and decentralisation therefore redundant. I think Identabit takes a similar view.

I think the BTS business model still revolves around providing privacy and financial freedom at a level that may ultimately be unpopular with some and therefore being effectively decentralised & geographically diverse to protect from interference is not redundant imo.

[clout]

I think 17's too much initially. I don't see why we need more than 11.

Bitshares perception problem has less to do with centralized nature of system and more to do with the fact that the windows GUI didn't work very well.

We need to stop think in terms of bitcoin and what people with in the bitcoin community think about centralization vs decentralization or how a blockchain can and can't be used.

Well I know you don't really believe in the value of decentralisation at all, so you'd be happy with just 1... 

@Helikopterben The premise of a blockchain is not decentralization it is information symmetry, which allows for participants in the network to more efficiently work together and manage risks. I don't think you understand how our financial system works. The government dictates property rights and there is no way around that particularly in the information age where most property is digitally recorded. I don't care if there is a central authority that controls the blockchain so long as the inherent transparency of the blockchain ensures that entity is accountable for their breach of protocol. In the end you're vision is not practical by any measure. So long as we have national governments we won't see it play out since governments will always seek to control the flow of capital within their borders, for security and policy reasons.

I believe in decentralization as it pertains to the division of labor. That is to say I think decentralization should be used for the purpose of added efficiency not redundancy. But maybe I'm thinking too pragmatically.

[Empirical1.2]

I think 17's too much initially. I don't see why we need more than 11.

Bitshares perception problem has less to do with centralized nature of system and more to do with the fact that the windows GUI didn't work very well.

We need to stop think in terms of bitcoin and what people with in the bitcoin community think about centralization vs decentralization or how a blockchain can and can't be used.

Well I know you don't really believe in the value of decentralisation at all, so you'd be happy with just 1... 

@Helikopterben The premise of a blockchain is not decentralization it is information symmetry, which allows for participants in the network to more efficiently work together and manage risks. I don't think you understand how our financial system works. The government dictates property rights and there is no way around that particularly in the information age where most property is digitally recorded. I don't care if there is a central authority that controls the blockchain so long as the inherent transparency of the blockchain ensures that entity is accountable for their breach of protocol. In the end you're vision is not practical by any measure. So long as we have national governments we won't see it play out since governments will always seek to control the flow of capital within their borders, for security and policy reasons.

[clout]

I think 17's too much initially. I don't see why we need more than 11.

Bitshares perception problem has less to do with centralized nature of system and more to do with the fact that the windows GUI didn't work very well.

We need to stop think in terms of bitcoin and what people with in the bitcoin community think about centralization vs decentralization or how a blockchain can and can't be used.

First and foremost, we are creating an exchange that should functionally feel like the centralized exchanges that bitcoiners currently use and continue to lose money as a result. The only difference between our exchange and the other exchanges that are out there is that we utilize a blockchain and users maintain full control of their funds.

How about instead of spending $300 for 17 or 30 or even 101 witnesses we spend that money on bringing liquidity to the exchange?
 

[Empirical1.2]

Looking at the business partners Graphene has attracted, and what attracted them, it matters little what "bitcoiners" perceive as secure.

Yes, this is what you guys said about dilution.

We know that a lot of bitcoiners and altcoiners think btsx is a "crapcoin" and a ponzi scheme. So why do we really care what they say about us diluting btsx? Many of them are set in stone and won't "convert". This is why they aren't a target demographic for btsx. Our time, money and energy should be focused on people outside the crypto sphere. Those people don't care how it works, but if it works.

Kind of reminds me of the famous five monkeys experiment. 
Nobody in those communities is willing to go for the bananas any more
but no one remembers why.

Kind of reminds me of the famous goose that laid the golden eggs.

Your current valuation and 6 figure volumes are from alt-coin speculators and investors. Not new business partners and their networks, yet. So I would say it matters quite a lot how the alt-coin market views BTS.