Author Topic: Delegates as gatekeepers?  (Read 3894 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline 5chdn

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 487
  • i wonder how many chars i can put in this field 50
    • View Profile
    • Votesapp
  • GitHub: 5chdn
Thanks xeroc. Got it.

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12922
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
Delegates are now called witnesses and their sole purpose is to bundle transactions into blocks and sign them when it's there time to do so.
So witnesses = delegates = consensus scheme of DPOS

if a single delegate does not include your transaction, the consecutive one certainly will do so.
Unless 51% of delegates collude, they can't prevent you from broadcasting your transaction/operation.

Neither can they add operations that are invalid (e.g. double spend) since that would result in an invalid block and the consecutive delegate/witness will just skip your block and you won't get paid for it.

more questions?

Offline 5chdn

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 487
  • i wonder how many chars i can put in this field 50
    • View Profile
    • Votesapp
  • GitHub: 5chdn
Excuse my ignorance, can someone expain me the concept of delegates in DACs? I just read the whitepaper for Follow My Vote and it appears they use delegates as gatekeepers. Delegates have to approve transactions.

Is this term "delegates" referring to delegates in relation with "delegated proof of stake" which is the general process of verifying transactions on the blockchain or are delegates in the language of FMV something different?

Further down the paper, it states the delegate's powers are limited. I hope so, what powers at all does a delegate have in this context?

Thanks for clarification.