Best Selling Option

[gamey]

The problem with a high number is voter apathy, so like  i said, becoming a delegate should require you to submit a collateral bid, then the client is set to automatically vote for the highest 101 collateral bids unless you choose to manually vote.

 

Is nobody paying attention here?
r0ach makes one of the best suggestions/proposals I have heard lately!
We should evaluate them seriously.


PS I agree with the PR nightmare known as 17 delegates
PS2 PR was never his "big thing" 

Not a bad idea... but it is effectively buying your way into power which is less accountable and has different risks.

It's the same security model, you've already bought your way into power by purchasing a bunch of stake to vote with.  I am simply offering users the fastest, most seamless, least time consuming possible way to identify the best game theory candidates to serve them, then letting them do it automated if they desire.

Bitshares will never become anything if you don't understand the following point.  Nobody uses Linux because Linux is a lifestyle, not a utility appliance to provide them benefit.  Nobody will use Bitshares if it's required being a lifestyle to use.  This is the only possible way to avoid Bitshares being a lifestyle.

I don't think that "game theory candidates" is true. You have to demonstrate there is not a benefit to having the majority or a large portion of candidates under the control of 1. It is sort of a half-assed game-theoretical approach, but nothing says it is a optimal/un-exploitable solution.

Since I'm being a nitpicker.. one more.
Linux arguably is not a lifestyle. To the contrary, a lot of people who use Linux are tired of Windows/Macs which have far more of a lifestyle component. (Having random CEOs or whoever else in charge of the direction of their OS instead of leaving it alone) This is not really important to your point, but us Linux users have to represent. It is nice having a nice stable OS with a frontend that does what I need and little more... and not subject to change at the whims of marketers or those looking to keep themselves employed.

I would have it at something like 33. 17 is too few and 101 might very well be too many at this market cap.

[38PTSWarrior]

what about all witnesses to donate (the first 3 months of bts2.0 existents) their profit's to... immigrants around the world?
Imagine immigrants to say thank you on camera winking with their smart-phones with installed bts2.0 mobile wallets 

you know what, that just might be a brilliant idea and i would personally donate to compensate our miners in the process.
The reason why its so brilliant is because this is the type of charitable stuff that our community is going to be doing eventually:

crowd sourced charity (as well as many other positive community actions)

its not a cheap marketing ploy as much as it is us behaving like we are going to behave forever
( weather we are profitible or not)

So, here, here, produce an initiative, set it up and watch the love and generosity from our community pour forth.  What better fanfare for our launch. Lets show the world that we are a dac for the people!

We not only get to show the world what we are about and what we can do, but we are will be making a difference in their lives.   It will be much harder to spin our community motives as selfish from then on. And considering the whole BTS AGS BS that is constantly flying around damaging our reputation and causing us to have a small markt cap and not be able to pay as many nodes as we would like to, this initiative would guarantee that we would have the moral high ground in any "bts people are greedy because of protoshare " or whatever negative press is ailing us.

Vote 38 before its too late. I am exactly the guy who can do this. I could have given 1 person per week a phone and personalized help with your votes since 8 months. Give them shirts etc. *sigh*

[giant middle finger]

The problem with a high number is voter apathy, so like  i said, becoming a delegate should require you to submit a collateral bid, then the client is set to automatically vote for the highest 101 collateral bids unless you choose to manually vote.

r0ach makes one of the best suggestions/proposals I have heard lately!

absolutely the most realistic (economic motive based) solution I've heard yet.  And isn't that what we are essentially developing:

a framework of economic incentives?

It's similar to the successful DASH model (pay to play).

It's just a brilliant baseline for competition among our miners (witnesses).

voter apathy, so like  i said, becoming a delegate should require you to submit a collateral bid, then the client is set to automatically vote for the highest 101 collateral bids unless you choose to manually vote.

Not a bad idea... but it is effectively buying your way into power which is less accountable and has different risks.

But only if there is zero voting participation, and at zero voting participation, we are at worse risk without this implemented.  It's true.  It's basically black swan protection in the event we suddenly experience massive widespread voter apathy.  It's like our current government where the rich run it until the voters get pissed, and try to exercise the political process.  In other words, people will understand this mechanism as a reflection of our own government structures. 

A witness could put up a million bitUSD as collateral, but without the required votes, it buys him nothing.  But someone who does not know the BitShares team, might see this collateral as proof that this guy isn't going to risk losing his collateral.  It will have potential benefit.  If Donald Trump wants to run for witness, and puts up $$$$$$, isn't that a good thing for us?  More people active in the political process.  You are never going to be able separate money from politics, so at least make a fair framework for honest competition, where capital has its place within the system, instead of pretending like money has nothing to do with politics.  Lets be realistic, and set the rule set accordingly.  Heads out of the sand.  The world is corrupt, and money is at the heart of every political decision.

It's the same security model, you've already bought your way into power by purchasing a bunch of stake to vote with.  I am simply offering users the fastest, most seamless, least time consuming possible way to identify the best game theory candidates to serve them, then letting them do it automated if they desire.

Exactly, because they will at least have some skin in the game, and it will cost them some money if they want to take down the system (instead of being able to do it for free).  The marriage of politics and economics has always been inseparable.  We should not deny this basic law of human nature, but embrace it within the elegant design of the BitShares monetary & political structure.   Otherwise, we risk having a an unnatural hole, gap, or void within our political structure.

[NewMine]

Keep it 101. Nobody outside Bitcoin and the altcoins gives two shits about bitshares. Those who do give a shit about the possibility of bitshares care very much about decentralization and distribution. Do not write your core audience and users off as not the people you are marketing to. There is no secret user base waiting for bitshares graphene to be released outside of the cryptocurrency community. You alienate them, bitshares will never be anything more than what it is now. Then again, you already own the code. So you will forever be compared to centralized solutions in some way or another.

[Akado]

Any input about empiricals idea to pay standby witnesses?

 

of course we must pay standby delegates!
they must have a motive to update, be informed etc.

That already exists. Competition.

If we paid the top 10 or so standby witnesses enough to rent a vps and randomly checked to ensure that they were updated and synced we could ensure that our talent bench had players ready to step in immediately.  I think it would be a very good insurance policy, that would only cost us a few hundred dollars a month.

Yes, you only need to incentive competition. But no need to pay all stand by witnesses. Otherwise they wouldn't be stand by witnesses right?

And all this talk mixing up witnesses with delegates is messing me up. People constantly throwing delegates and witnesses together when delegates will cease to exist and their roles will be spread through new positions (witnesses, worker). I end up confusing myself and probably other people trying to figure 2.0 out

[r0ach]

The problem with a high number is voter apathy, so like  i said, becoming a delegate should require you to submit a collateral bid, then the client is set to automatically vote for the highest 101 collateral bids unless you choose to manually vote.

 

Is nobody paying attention here?
r0ach makes one of the best suggestions/proposals I have heard lately!
We should evaluate them seriously.


PS I agree with the PR nightmare known as 17 delegates
PS2 PR was never his "big thing" 

Not a bad idea... but it is effectively buying your way into power which is less accountable and has different risks.

It's the same security model, you've already bought your way into power by purchasing a bunch of stake to vote with.  I am simply offering users the fastest, most seamless, least time consuming possible way to identify the best game theory candidates to serve them, then letting them do it automated if they desire.

Bitshares will never become anything if you don't understand the following point.  Nobody uses Linux because Linux is a lifestyle, not a utility appliance to provide them benefit.  Nobody will use Bitshares if it's required being a lifestyle to use.  This is the only possible way to avoid Bitshares being a lifestyle.

[puppies]

Any input about empiricals idea to pay standby witnesses?

 

of course we must pay standby delegates!
they must have a motive to update, be informed etc.

That already exists. Competition.

If we paid the top 10 or so standby witnesses enough to rent a vps and randomly checked to ensure that they were updated and synced we could ensure that our talent bench had players ready to step in immediately.  I think it would be a very good insurance policy, that would only cost us a few hundred dollars a month.

[Akado]

Any input about empiricals idea to pay standby witnesses?

 

of course we must pay standby delegates!
they must have a motive to update, be informed etc.

That already exists. Competition.

Why not, if someone burns X amount of BitShares, they get Y amount of permanent votes? Y can be worked out maybe. And we still have some part of that collateral idea being used?

[liondani]

Any input about empiricals idea to pay standby witnesses?

 

of course we must pay standby delegates!
they must have a motive to update, be informed etc.

[liondani]

The problem with a high number is voter apathy, so like  i said, becoming a delegate should require you to submit a collateral bid, then the client is set to automatically vote for the highest 101 collateral bids unless you choose to manually vote.

 

Is nobody paying attention here?
r0ach makes one of the best suggestions/proposals I have heard lately!
We should evaluate them seriously.


PS I agree with the PR nightmare known as 17 delegates
PS2 PR was never his "big thing" 

Not a bad idea... but it is effectively buying your way into power which is less accountable and has different risks.

I am confident you will find the "sweet spot" to combine this idea with the existing one...
What matters is ... the seed is now planted   

[puppies]

Can we just say we are letting the network decide the number and move on. 

r0aches idea is interesting, but I would like to see how well proxy voting works towards fixing voter apathy before we increase the barriers to entry for witnesses.  One of the common complaints about PoS coins is that they further concentrate stake in the hands of the largest holders through staking.  DPOS has so far avoided that. 

What does everyone think the witnesses should be paid per block?

Any input about empiricals idea to pay standby witnesses?

[bytemaster]

The problem with a high number is voter apathy, so like  i said, becoming a delegate should require you to submit a collateral bid, then the client is set to automatically vote for the highest 101 collateral bids unless you choose to manually vote.

 

Is nobody paying attention here?
r0ach makes one of the best suggestions/proposals I have heard lately!
We should evaluate them seriously.


PS I agree with the PR nightmare known as 17 delegates
PS2 PR was never his "big thing" 

Not a bad idea... but it is effectively buying your way into power which is less accountable and has different risks.

[bytemaster]

look at it this way:

whats the worst thing that can happen?

double spend a few blocks and then they are kicked out?

8 block producers collude to produce a majority fork which freezes all transactions, including voting, rendering the chain useless.

FOR A DAY.

[liondani]

The problem with a high number is voter apathy, so like  i said, becoming a delegate should require you to submit a collateral bid, then the client is set to automatically vote for the highest 101 collateral bids unless you choose to manually vote.

 

Is nobody paying attention here?
r0ach makes one of the best suggestions/proposals I have heard lately!
We should evaluate them seriously.


PS I agree with the PR nightmare known as 17 delegates
PS2 PR was never his "big thing" 

[r0ach]

If we don't lose anything with 100 then we should stick to 100 and change it later if there is a need for optimization. I doubt that 100 vs 17 is a significant optimization and the cost in terms of perception isn't worth it.

The problem with a high number is voter apathy, so like  i said, becoming a delegate should require you to submit a collateral bid, then the client is set to automatically vote for the highest 101 collateral bids unless you choose to manually vote.

If you can't fill 101 positions immediately, it's better to have the same person fulfilling multiple ones until they can be handed off instead of the PR nightmare known as 17 delegates.