About workers: 1.14.35/36Fund to pay dividend

[Erlich Bachman]

woah, bad idea. why discourage new prospective shareholders?

[Pheonike]

Could just do it by percentage of coin-days.  Whatever percentage of the total coin-days you have on particular day, your stake vote is increase by that percentage. So if you have say 0.25% of the coin-day total for that day and you account has 100,000 BTS, your new voting stake will be 100,002.5 BTS.

[tbone]

In many places there is a minimum age requirement to vote. What if voting stake was based on coin days? Those that care about bts for the long term will get their vote and voice amplified. Those that want to make a quick buck will have less sway on decisions.

That seems to make a lot of sense if there is a practical way to accomplish it.

This is an interesting idea that might be worth exploring more.   

I agree this is an interesting idea.  Perhaps we should also consider the idea of having voting weight diminish over time so people need to renew their votes/proxies.  I don't see any reason why these 2 ideas would be mutually exclusive. 

[Thom]

In many places there is a minimum age requirement to vote. What if voting stake was based on coin days? Those that care about bts for the long term will get their vote and voice amplified. Those that want to make a quick buck will have less sway on decisions.

That seems to make a lot of sense if there is a practical way to accomplish it.

I agree with BCL, this is an interesting idea. Voting strength is based on stake and amplified based on coin days which are based on? Refresh my memory, I thought it was stake used over a finite time period?

<Off Topic> So I tried to use the forum search to find a definition of "coin days" but as usual lots of mentions but time consuming to weed thru them to discover an answer. This gives me an idea to create a "BitShares Glossary" where terminology like this can have a definition. Ideally this would be a sticky post at the top of the "General Discussion" board. I'll see if I can make that happen and start working on it, but it won't happen this week.
<On Topic>

If this were implemented as an extension to abit's implementation of free transactions the impact on existing code would be minimized. In practice it would amount to changing the vote processing code to factor in a new committee parameter ("voteMagnify") that adds more votes. I don't think proxies are really impacted. They should be voting with the aggregate of the voting power of the each account the proxy represents, whatever that is.

As I think about this I can well imagine it might be tricky to get right, recalling BM saying how "expensive" it is to process votes, which is why it is only done once per maintenance window as opposed to each witness cycle as it was in version 0.9.x.

However, if this were done it would be an ideal time to think about how some sort of certification / audit / report could be done to add credibility to our voting algorithm.

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

In many places there is a minimum age requirement to vote. What if voting stake was based on coin days? Those that care about bts for the long term will get their vote and voice amplified. Those that want to make a quick buck will have less sway on decisions.

That seems to make a lot of sense if there is a practical way to accomplish it.

This is an interesting idea that might be worth exploring more.   

[onceuponatime]

In many places there is a minimum age requirement to vote. What if voting stake was based on coin days? Those that care about bts for the long term will get their vote and voice amplified. Those that want to make a quick buck will have less sway on decisions.

That seems to make a lot of sense if there is a practical way to accomplish it.

[Pheonike]

In many places there is a minimum age requirement to vote. What if voting stake was based on coin days? Those that care about bts for the long term will get their vote and voice amplified. Those that want to make a quick buck will have less sway on decisions.

[-banano-]

negative voting is redundant feature

keep BTS streamlined and efficient to survive

[sasashui]

This is actually a pretty clever way to manipulate votes to get the end you desire using the proxy system. Promote your proxy by appealing to people's greed (get paid money to vote for me), then vote for this dividend proposal which you know will never get passed, and later vote for your real objective (vote for refund worker to cut off funds to workers). You get voting power from all these people who will likely never pay attention to your full voting slate after their initial proxy to you.

I've never been a particular fan of the proxy idea (I don't like representative government in general), and I guess this shows one problem with a proxy system where you don't have to renew your proxy occasionally.

vote for refund worker to cut off funds to workers?  right ! If the work is unvaluable,vote for vote that worker is dividend for himself ,vote for refund is dividend for everybody. and that worker is the crab whitch tries to crawl up the side of the Crab bucket.

[dannotestein]

This is actually a pretty clever way to manipulate votes to get the end you desire using the proxy system. Promote your proxy by appealing to people's greed (get paid money to vote for me), then vote for this dividend proposal which you know will never get passed, and later vote for your real objective (vote for refund worker to cut off funds to workers). You get voting power from all these people who will likely never pay attention to your full voting slate after their initial proxy to you.

I've never been a particular fan of the proxy idea (I don't like representative government in general), and I guess this shows one problem with a proxy system where you don't have to renew your proxy occasionally.

[sasashui]

why don't you consider believers will come and buy BTS for dividend ?  this is a good way to get "POS"

Good idea 
Those are another group of believers.

You can joint in this group of believers ,and joint in the original worker at the same time, nobady knows. When the ecosystem need  the works, we vote it  , but if the work is unvaluable, we get dividend, right ? 
Maybe it  can get rid of "Voter Apathy" , attract the potential believers buy in at once.   @cube

[abit]

why don't you consider believers will come and buy BTS for dividend ?  this is a good way to get "POS"

Good idea 
Those are another group of believers.

[sasashui]

why don't you consider believers will come and buy BTS for dividend ?  this is a good way to get "POS" 

[sasashui]

Sorry .. but I don't get it ..
Why should the shareholders agree for being paid out of the reserves?
IMHO that is just stupid .. it kills the networks ability to fund future profit at the benefits fo some stupid/greedy people ?!?
What am I missing here?

You are missing the fact that sociopaths and psychopaths make up a certain (~3%) part of any population.

That‘s no doubt about that poloniex、btc38 had make a contribution to the BTS，I think they can creat a worker and vote himself ,
Maybe you will say they are crazy ,but The capital market is always crazy.
assuming that some has many BTS, or he can get many votes like this ,creat a worker and vote hinself , but he doesn't work ,so what?
Rely on the moral ? or rely on the rule ?

If this will come sooner or later, better sooner than later. Let them do it, drive the price down, so real believers can buy in cheaper.

I had heard for several times , "you don't like bts , you can sell it out , and you leave , let that believers buy in cheaper.....".  Unfortunatly , I saw many  people left , real believer buy in cheaper ,cheaper than cheaper... 
BM has concluded that certain kinds of proof-of-work are actually incredibly valuable and useful to an ecosystem’s development.  Maybe we    should reflect on ourself, reflect on the rule ,  rather than buy in cheaper . Love well, whip well

[cube]

After being taken the ability to actively vote against ideas like this... I find myself pretty much agreeing with the approach...

Let distribute all available fund to stake holders and then finance any development we find appropriate on a case by case bases.


what?
This will be "voting 'for' only" brought to its purest form...

haha , I'm pretty sure this proposal is for morking the "vote against function being taken out"

So this is more a protest vote against the change which makes it easier to vote in bad workers?

Looks like it.  This person has paid approx USD20 for his two 'distribute-fund-back-to-shareholder' workers and he has voted for the refund workers too. I think he knows he would not succeed.  Now, USD20 for a protest...