exchange preparing for voting

[abit]

That's too complicated for a common Joe. Thus not a good idea for voting. Voting should be simple to understand.

[puppies]

What if there were 2 core tokens: BTS and BTSVOTE. BTSVOTE would be sharedropped 1:1 onto BTS, and then freely tradeable on the DEX. This would allow exchanges to sell their votes to someone who values voting, for cash in their pocket.

That would allow people to attack bts for even less resources.  How many would sell this btsvote for any profit they could get.

I don't think this is the end of the world by any means. 

I don't think I'll use yunbi anymore, but I was not a regular customer so they won't be missing much.

Trying to get three entities to control the majority of voting in the name of decentralisation is rather silly.

This is seeming more and more like an attempted coup.  Please inform me if I've misread this.

How did you get so disenfranchised?  what do you hope to accomplish?

I'm glad that clayop is back in the committee.  It's too bad that we lost two witnesses in the process.

sorry for having not totally understood the voting rule, have communicated with yunbi and now the witnesses number has grown to 27.

what I accomplished now is to get clayop and bhuz back, even only this still worth me to spend so much time to communicate with yunbi. it's not a normal status for 5 inits accounts to stay in the committee, if no one can change that, let me push the move.

I appreciate the honesty, and I appreciate that you got clayop and bhuz back in the active committee.

[roadscape]

What if there were 2 core tokens: BTS and BTSVOTE. BTSVOTE would be sharedropped 1:1 onto BTS, and then freely tradeable on the DEX. This would allow exchanges to sell their votes to someone who values voting, for cash in their pocket.

[bitcrab]

I don't think this is the end of the world by any means. 

I don't think I'll use yunbi anymore, but I was not a regular customer so they won't be missing much.

Trying to get three entities to control the majority of voting in the name of decentralisation is rather silly.

This is seeming more and more like an attempted coup.  Please inform me if I've misread this.

How did you get so disenfranchised?  what do you hope to accomplish?

I'm glad that clayop is back in the committee.  It's too bad that we lost two witnesses in the process.

sorry for having not totally understood the voting rule, have communicated with yunbi and now the witnesses number has grown to 27.

what I accomplished now is to get clayop and bhuz back, even only this still worth me to spend so much time to communicate with yunbi. it's not a normal status for 5 inits accounts to stay in the committee, if no one can change that, let me push the move.

[bitcrab]

There was still 5 hours to spare to get your votes in while you were busy posting in forums here. If you can post in forums, you telegram any questions you have or vote. You choose not to support the protection measure. Proof is in the blockchain. There is still more that needs to be done.

actually when I try to approve I have some trouble in my cli_wallet, and I saw there are more than 51% support, then I switch to do some other things, if you explain this as I do not support the protection measure, up to you.

[abit]

Earlier or later we'll have to face this. Imo it's better earlier than later.

Rather than complaining, I'd like to think more on how to prevent the top N worst scenarios from happening.
Improve the rules from the code, not from asking someone to do something or not to do something.

What are the worst scenarios?
* A whale votes badly (perhaps by accidentally)
* A whale's account is compromised, votes badly
* A whale distribute her stake among several accounts, votes badly
* A group of whales vote badly
* A whale lend her stake to someone else, asked for no change of votes, but the borrower changed the votes, badly.
* A "bad" witness or a group of "bad" witnesses is/are voted in

How to prevent them? Some ideas here, but may be wrong.
* One stake can only vote for one committee member
* Any witness with votes higher than 10% of total stake supply are considered "voted in" (in addition need to think what will happen if too many are voted in and how to deal with it)
* When voting, one must vote for at least 5 witnesses, no more than 100 witnesses, otherwise the vote is considered invalid.
* When voting, desired_witness_number = size_of(the voted list of witnesses)*2+1, or say, if you vote for 10 witnesses, you agree that you want there are 21 witnesses in total
* standby witnesses should be allowed to produce blocks in some cases, for example some "active" witnesses are detected offline, a detected offline witness must prove that it's online so that it's permitted to produce block again.

It's too bad that we lost two witnesses in the process.

It means our remaining active witnesses have to work harder.

[helloworld]

 

Technically it's dangerous for the system that one can vote for more than 1/2 of committee members

you are definitely right, vote for more than 1/2 committee, that's a super bomb. hope BTC38 never be hacked
@Bytemаsteг

[fav]

all the scenarios are imagined by you, I can also imagine that BM and you conspire to exploit all the shareholders, but I wouldn't. 

at least half of the committee members support me to do so, don't think you can represent the interest of BTS community, even BM said he will just give help.

yes, BM and exchange are different, BM are so good at the design of the system infrastructure, but he may be not so good at understanding some business, and his own interest can also conflict with the interest of the whole shareholders. Giving any entity too much power will be bad, including BM.

as a committee member, my idea is to make a balance on the committee, so need to introduce more voting powers, maybe also need to refine the rule. all these is to avoid the committee be under any single entity's control.

I haven't began asking big dogs, I just invited a little dog to come out to let everyone know him, otherwise no changes are possible, I'll help the system to grow for the coming of big dogs.

don't worry.

The committee members (primarily puppies) have been working on measures through the weekend to protect Bitshares against scenarios of bad proposals being passed. We finally did a test today that at the time did not have clayop voted in (congrates btw!)... it got support from every committee member except one.

but without the one, would you think about to prepare this measure?
without the one, would clayop be voted in?
I am at  Shanghai blockchain hackthon the last weekend, no time to discuss in telegram, on the other side, I am not so good at technical things, should these be blamed?

There was still 5 hours to spare to get your votes in while you were busy posting in forums here. If you can post in forums, you telegram any questions you have or vote. You choose not to support the protection measure. Proof is in the blockchain. There is still more that needs to be done.

come on, it's already proved, don't know why you still push him for approval
why don't you ask Bytemaster for this?

Code: [Select]

Current Approval Weight 19,356 51.3%


not sure what you're trying to proof here. BM is a large stakeholder and has the right to vote with his (+proxy) stake

[alt]

all the scenarios are imagined by you, I can also imagine that BM and you conspire to exploit all the shareholders, but I wouldn't. 

at least half of the committee members support me to do so, don't think you can represent the interest of BTS community, even BM said he will just give help.

yes, BM and exchange are different, BM are so good at the design of the system infrastructure, but he may be not so good at understanding some business, and his own interest can also conflict with the interest of the whole shareholders. Giving any entity too much power will be bad, including BM.

as a committee member, my idea is to make a balance on the committee, so need to introduce more voting powers, maybe also need to refine the rule. all these is to avoid the committee be under any single entity's control.

I haven't began asking big dogs, I just invited a little dog to come out to let everyone know him, otherwise no changes are possible, I'll help the system to grow for the coming of big dogs.

don't worry.

The committee members (primarily puppies) have been working on measures through the weekend to protect Bitshares against scenarios of bad proposals being passed. We finally did a test today that at the time did not have clayop voted in (congrates btw!)... it got support from every committee member except one.

but without the one, would you think about to prepare this measure?
without the one, would clayop be voted in?
I am at  Shanghai blockchain hackthon the last weekend, no time to discuss in telegram, on the other side, I am not so good at technical things, should these be blamed?

There was still 5 hours to spare to get your votes in while you were busy posting in forums here. If you can post in forums, you telegram any questions you have or vote. You choose not to support the protection measure. Proof is in the blockchain. There is still more that needs to be done.

come on, it's already proved, don't know why you still push him for approval
why don't you ask Bytemaster for this?

Code: [Select]

Current Approval Weight 19,356 51.3%


[deer]

Haven't BM ever used the community-fund bts to vote for himself？
some people are just double standard，funny.

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

all the scenarios are imagined by you, I can also imagine that BM and you conspire to exploit all the shareholders, but I wouldn't. 

at least half of the committee members support me to do so, don't think you can represent the interest of BTS community, even BM said he will just give help.

yes, BM and exchange are different, BM are so good at the design of the system infrastructure, but he may be not so good at understanding some business, and his own interest can also conflict with the interest of the whole shareholders. Giving any entity too much power will be bad, including BM.

as a committee member, my idea is to make a balance on the committee, so need to introduce more voting powers, maybe also need to refine the rule. all these is to avoid the committee be under any single entity's control.

I haven't began asking big dogs, I just invited a little dog to come out to let everyone know him, otherwise no changes are possible, I'll help the system to grow for the coming of big dogs.

don't worry.

The committee members (primarily puppies) have been working on measures through the weekend to protect Bitshares against scenarios of bad proposals being passed. We finally did a test today that at the time did not have clayop voted in (congrates btw!)... it got support from every committee member except one.

but without the one, would you think about to prepare this measure?
without the one, would clayop be voted in?
I am at  Shanghai blockchain hackthon the last weekend, no time to discuss in telegram, on the other side, I am not so good at technical things, should these be blamed?

There was still 5 hours to spare to get your votes in while you were busy posting in forums here. If you can post in forums, you telegram any questions you have or vote. You choose not to support the protection measure. Proof is in the blockchain. There is still more that needs to be done.

[bitcrab]

all the scenarios are imagined by you, I can also imagine that BM and you conspire to exploit all the shareholders, but I wouldn't. 

at least half of the committee members support me to do so, don't think you can represent the interest of BTS community, even BM said he will just give help.

yes, BM and exchange are different, BM are so good at the design of the system infrastructure, but he may be not so good at understanding some business, and his own interest can also conflict with the interest of the whole shareholders. Giving any entity too much power will be bad, including BM.

as a committee member, my idea is to make a balance on the committee, so need to introduce more voting powers, maybe also need to refine the rule. all these is to avoid the committee be under any single entity's control.

I haven't began asking big dogs, I just invited a little dog to come out to let everyone know him, otherwise no changes are possible, I'll help the system to grow for the coming of big dogs.

don't worry.

The committee members (primarily puppies) have been working on measures through the weekend to protect Bitshares against scenarios of bad proposals being passed. We finally did a test today that at the time did not have clayop voted in (congrates btw!)... it got support from every committee member except one.

but without the one, would you think about to prepare this measure?
without the one, would clayop be voted in?
I am at  Shanghai blockchain hackthon the last weekend, no time to discuss in telegram, on the other side, I am not so good at technical things, should these be blamed?

[puppies]

I don't think this is the end of the world by any means. 

I don't think I'll use yunbi anymore, but I was not a regular customer so they won't be missing much.

Trying to get three entities to control the majority of voting in the name of decentralisation is rather silly.

This is seeming more and more like an attempted coup.  Please inform me if I've misread this.

How did you get so disenfranchised?  what do you hope to accomplish?

I'm glad that clayop is back in the committee.  It's too bad that we lost two witnesses in the process.

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

Seeing 60m bts voting for zero witnesses does not inspire me with confidence in the knowledge or commitment of those voting.  If you have bts at yunbi, be aware.

I'm withdrawing mine.  Can't use Yunbi anymore, i guess.  Too bad.

yeah, exchanges can barely follow developments of coins, how do you expect them to know our politics.

They don't need to know our politics. They just need someone who they can assign proxy vote to as the OP has been actively encouraging them to do. For those attempting to convince them to do this, I don't know what they might be offering in return.. promises of their followers trading only on their platform perhaps?

For the ones getting those proxy votes.. it means absolute power to make BTS truly their play thing. As for the exchange.. they got their backdoor deal and they can continue to claim plausible deniability on any damage that follows via the proxy.

This falls under Scenario #2 as I stated earlier.

[Xeldal]

Seeing 60m bts voting for zero witnesses does not inspire me with confidence in the knowledge or commitment of those voting.  If you have bts at yunbi, be aware.

I'm withdrawing mine.  Can't use Yunbi anymore, i guess.  Too bad.

yeah, exchanges can barely follow developments of coins, how do you expect them to know our politics.

I informed them of *my politics a week ago.  I don't speak for anyone else.