Disingenuous Delegates Deceit

[Simeon II]

The majority of my BTSX is on bter waiting for the ability to withdraw.  I'm sure my stake isn't that large compared to others on there.  It's early days yet.

This do makes me cry... 

Ask me why.

[Riverhead]

*In toast we trust*.

It's not just blind trust .. you can see that as long as bter.com does not enable widthdrawal .. the exchanges stake does simply not vote .. and its a bigger stake than AngelShares afaik

The majority of my BTSX is on bter waiting for the ability to withdraw.  I'm sure my stake isn't that large compared to others on there.  It's early days yet.

[xeroc]

*In toast we trust*.

It's not just blind trust .. you can see that as long as bter.com does not enable widthdrawal .. the exchanges stake does simply not vote .. and its a bigger stake than AngelShares afaik

[G1ng3rBr34dM4n]

I have thrown some weight behind more delegates that are not clearly dishonest.   (he is no longer an active delegate that I know of)

Well done!
Hmm, now the network has come to a consensus that *you can't be an active delegate unless you get approved by bytemaster*.

wait the funds to come in to the bitshares ecosystem and everything will change...
It is the beginning, please see the positive side of things, like security etc.  It is better/importand for every new born baby to not get seek the first few weeks 

Definitely no.
I've already seen Chinese people joining in team to vote only for members in the team. When more funds come in, there will definitely be a team with more than 51%, much like what bytemaster's angel account's position (>51%) at the moment. When that happens, the network will be totally dominated by that team, just like what's happening right now that bytemaster is controlling all the delegates.
I think we should at least go back to discussing a better voting scheme: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=5895.0

Goomboo, easy on the FUD.

Like toast said, voting is at 1% - the system just needs some dilution.  ...Take a teaspoon of salt and throw it in a glass of water and take a sip.  Take a teaspoon of salt and throw it in a lake then take a sip.

BitShares is well on its way to becoming a Great Lake.

[liondani]

I have thrown some weight behind more delegates that are not clearly dishonest.   (he is no longer an active delegate that I know of)

Well done!
Hmm, now the network has come to a consensus that *you can't be an active delegate unless you get approved by bytemaster*.

wait the funds to come in to the bitshares ecosystem and everything will change...
It is the beginning, please see the positive side of things, like security etc.  It is better/importand for every new born baby to not get seek the first few weeks 

[wackou]

All I see are init delegates. Is there something wrong with my copy of the chain?

You are probably not on the correct network. For the real one, you shouldn't be getting it from the same repo as for the dry runs, but from there:

https://github.com/dacsunlimited/bitsharesx/releases

[8bit]

All I see are init delegates. Is there something wrong with my copy of the chain?

Code: [Select]

ID    NAME (* next in line)           APPROVAL       PRODUCED MISSED   RELIABILITY   PAY RATE PAY BALANCE         LAST BLOCK
============================================================================================================================
2     init1                           0.0000000001 % 253      0        100.00 %      100 %    0.00171 XTS         25516     
40    init39                          0.0000000001 % 256      0        100.00 %      100 %    0.00173 XTS         25517     
25    init24                          0.0000000001 % 253      0        100.00 %      100 %    0.00170 XTS         25518     
79    init78                          0.0000000001 % 253      0        100.00 %      100 %    0.00170 XTS         25519     
36    init35                          0.0000000001 % 256      0        100.00 %      100 %    0.00174 XTS         25520     
47    init46                          0.0000000001 % 256      0        100.00 %      100 %    0.00173 XTS         25521     
22    init21                          0.0000000001 % 253      0        100.00 %      100 %    0.00170 XTS         25522     
78    init77                          0.0000000001 % 254      0        100.00 %      100 %    0.00172 XTS         25523     
66    init65                          0.0000000001 % 254      0        100.00 %      100 %    0.00171 XTS         25524     
11    init10                          0.0000000001 % 253      0        100.00 %      100 %    0.00170 XTS         25525     
31    init30                          0.0000000001 % 253      0        100.00 %      100 %    0.00170 XTS         25526     
99    init98                          0.0000000001 % 254      0        100.00 %      100 %    0.00171 XTS         25527     
39    init38                          0.0000000001 % 253      0        100.00 %      100 %    0.00170 XTS         25528     
7     init6                           0.0000000001 % 255      0        100.00 %      100 %    0.00172 XTS         25529     
83    init82                          0.0000000001 % 255      0        100.00 %      100 %    0.00172 XTS         25530     
92    init91                          0.0000000001 % 256      0        100.00 %      100 %    0.00173 XTS         25531     
14    init13                          0.0000000001 % 253      0        100.00 %      100 %    0.00170 XTS         25532     
53    init52                          0.0000000001 % 256      0        100.00 %      100 %    0.00173 XTS         25533     
57    init56                          0.0000000001 % 255      0        100.00 %      100 %    0.00172 XTS         25534     
42    init41                          0.0000000001 % 253      0        100.00 %      100 %    0.00170 XTS         25535     


[AdamBLevine]

yeah, I think the squatting issue is turning into a big deal since its identity names rather than asset names.  I registerd "adam" but "adamblevine" was snagged pretty fast (before I realized the issue) and I definitely have concerns about it being used in scams, along with the rest of these names.  If GMAXWELL requests you send donations to GMAXWELL on bitshares, why *wouldnt* that be gmaxwells account?

[wackou]

@wackou  I think what you're missing is that this sort of behavior can only happen when the average delegate has lower approval than some individual's balance. Eventually what should happen is that even the lowest voted delegate has more approval than any individual has stake and so you can't just vote yourself in because you have to appeal to all stakeholders.

That's correct, but then you kind of assume that people will vote for all the delegates they like, when in fact I believe most people will vote for only 1 or 2 (if at all). I know that voting has been discussed a lot in these forums, and I don't want to flog a dead horse, so let's leave it there for now. You're certainly right that I might have jumped to conclusions a bit early, we should let the network stabilize a bit more, and it looks like the situation has been kind of fixed for now. However it would be nice if we didn't need a benevolent dictator to fix the network when it starts going bad (I wouldn't mind if that benevolent dictator would be bytemaster, though, if there's one person that can be trusted to be it that's certainly him )

[santaclause102]

there are a lot more than those... Actually, out of the 100 first delegates, a huge number seems disingenuous/dishonest...

All the names/delegates that were present and active during the dry runs, who were people that were making bitshares a vibrant ecosystem have been relegated to rank > 100 and even > 200, while all the first spots have been taken by whoever voted for their +10 delegates. This is a blatant case of "the rich get richer", and these people will certainly not do anything for the network except collecting their fees and sit on it while the rest of us just get disappointed and disgusted...

I have to say that I missed the moment where the votes for a transaction go to *all* the delegates that are approved, I thought that they would be divided between the number of approved delegates in a wallet, or in a round-robin fashion, but in any case I was expecting that the total sum of votes would be 100%. This would mean that a whale could only upvote one of their delegate, or more of them but then the stake would have been divided by the number of voted delegates, which would have prevented the situation we have now.

Pushing it further, I can even see that those people with high stake and their big number of delegates could collude and get, say, all their 80 delegates active, each with 25% approval, and the rest of us can keep our few percents and weep. For me, I was always attracted to bitshares because I imagined a slate of 100 different delegates, each offering something different and contributing to the network either by writing code, promoting bitshares, donating to charities, ... and making the world a better place while still building an efficient and modern financial system. This vision is kinda slipping away right now...

In any case, I think the approval rating of delegates that we have now is flawed, and something needs to be done about it. I don't think the situation as it is now could be fixed, even if people with a huge stake would get involved (invictus?) because I feel this would just lead to a race to the top where most of delegates would all have > 50% and where the difference between delegates would not be significant enough and would not be very stable. Please tell me I'm wrong.

The person that has voted for the deceiving names delegates acts against his own interest. If he/she has a big stake he/she would profit way more from a healthy network (without the deceiving names) through price appreciation than from the tiny fees he/she gets. It's kind of dumb.

Also the effect seems more dramatic because it is likely that with approval voting his delegates will either be all <100 or all be >100 because they all have the same percentage. With delegation voting he/she could bring in one or two delegates that are always among the top 100. Over time, if more participate, it is more likely that such an actor will be >100

[Riverhead]

Wow, this was sorted out quickly!  All mentioned delegates have been pushed out.  Thank you to whoever was paying attention and had the ability to take action.

Seems whales can swim in all sorts of directions 

[Xeldal]

Wow, this was sorted out quickly!  All mentioned delegates have been pushed out.  Thank you to whoever was paying attention and had the ability to take action.

[Riverhead]

If only windows users were able to access the system. Seeing as microsoft is the most widely used OS, I'm sure once windows user can access bitshares x this will clear up. Till then, enjoy.

My primary wallet is running just fine on Windows 8.1.

Several people have complained about windows 7. I have tried on two seperate computers. Event viewer errors and full blow debug has been posted. The problem is real.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply the problem was a fabrication by a few people.  Just that Windows isn't completely shut out for the few of us running Win8.  I agree that Win7 is the primary OS most people use.

[wesphily]

If only windows users were able to access the system. Seeing as microsoft is the most widely used OS, I'm sure once windows user can access bitshares x this will clear up. Till then, enjoy.

My primary wallet is running just fine on Windows 8.1.

Several people have complained about windows 7. I have tried on two seperate computers. Event viewer errors and full blow debug has been posted. The problem is real.

[Riverhead]

If only windows users were able to access the system. Seeing as microsoft is the most widely used OS, I'm sure once windows user can access bitshares x this will clear up. Till then, enjoy.

My primary wallet is running just fine on Windows 8.1.

[maqifrnswa]

I think that it is too early to judge... the fact that someone with such a large stake is being deceitful is very troubling, but then again if the other 95% of stake holders got on board then it would clear up.

No system is perfect, especially one based on voting.

"Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." -- Winston Churchill, 11 November 1947

[bytemaster]

I have thrown some weight behind more delegates that are not clearly dishonest.   (he is no longer an active delegate that I know of)

[wesphily]

If only windows users were able to access the system. Seeing as microsoft is the most widely used OS, I'm sure once windows user can access bitshares x this will clear up. Till then, enjoy.

[toast]

@wackou  I think what you're missing is that this sort of behavior can only happen when the average delegate has lower approval than some individual's balance. Eventually what should happen is that even the lowest voted delegate has more approval than any individual has stake and so you can't just vote yourself in because you have to appeal to all stakeholders.

[bytemaster]

I think that it is too early to judge... the fact that someone with such a large stake is being deceitful is very troubling, but then again if the other 95% of stake holders got on board then it would clear up.

No system is perfect, especially one based on voting. 

[wackou]

there are a lot more than those... Actually, out of the 100 first delegates, a huge number seems disingenuous/dishonest...

All the names/delegates that were present and active during the dry runs, who were people that were making bitshares a vibrant ecosystem have been relegated to rank > 100 and even > 200, while all the first spots have been taken by whoever voted for their +10 delegates. This is a blatant case of "the rich get richer", and these people will certainly not do anything for the network except collecting their fees and sit on it while the rest of us just get disappointed and disgusted...

I have to say that I missed the moment where the votes for a transaction go to *all* the delegates that are approved, I thought that they would be divided between the number of approved delegates in a wallet, or in a round-robin fashion, but in any case I was expecting that the total sum of votes would be 100%. This would mean that a whale could only upvote one of their delegate, or more of them but then the stake would have been divided by the number of voted delegates, which would have prevented the situation we have now.

Pushing it further, I can even see that those people with high stake and their big number of delegates could collude and get, say, all their 80 delegates active, each with 25% approval, and the rest of us can keep our few percents and weep. For me, I was always attracted to bitshares because I imagined a slate of 100 different delegates, each offering something different and contributing to the network either by writing code, promoting bitshares, donating to charities, ... and making the world a better place while still building an efficient and modern financial system. This vision is kinda slipping away right now...

In any case, I think the approval rating of delegates that we have now is flawed, and something needs to be done about it. I don't think the situation as it is now could be fixed, even if people with a huge stake would get involved (invictus?) because I feel this would just lead to a race to the top where most of delegates would all have > 50% and where the difference between delegates would not be significant enough and would not be very stable. Please tell me I'm wrong.

[Riverhead]

I would like to see this sorted out with tools and votes rather than punitive action.  A truly open and decentralized system needs to be able to look after itself without a centralized authority.  This is a great test of what this community can and will do.

[bytemaster]

So someone has a big stake and votes for his own delegates?

Yes, and there's nothing wrong with that.  But the use of popular names and businesses is disingenuous, and the intent is clearly to deceive.

We have a plan for that with Follow My Vote

[Xeldal]

So someone has a big stake and votes for his own delegates?

Yes, and there's nothing wrong with that.  But the use of popular names and businesses is disingenuous, and the intent is clearly to deceive.

[toast]

I don't think this is a huge problem. As soon as the average delegate's approval goes above the largest stakeholder's stake, then there will be no point in voting all for your own delegates and this guy will start voting for who he thinks is best.

Just get more people to vote. We have like 1% of stake voting not counting the temporary AGS votes.

[santaclause102]

So someone has a big stake and votes for his own delegates?

[Xeldal]

I can't be 100% sure, but the ID's are back to back so they were created near the same point in time, and the vote percentages are near exactly the same, indicating that the same stake likely has voted for all of them. 

The names all follow a similar theme. They're all popular bitcoin businesses/mining pools/prominent bitcointalk usernames etc.

[wesphily]

Can somebody explain what this means?

[ElMato]

more of the same BS

8354  grue                            1.4502068769 % 3        0        100.00 %      100 %    7.07166 BTSX        21668
8351  bitrick                         1.4502068768 % 3        0        100.00 %      100 %    7.06998 BTSX        21733
8356  gmaxwell                        1.4502068767 % 3        0        100.00 %      100 %    7.06847 BTSX        21738
8353  horserider                      1.4502067591 % 2        0        100.00 %      100 %    4.71548 BTSX        21619
8346  cryptx                          1.4502067590 % 2        0        100.00 %      100 %    4.71501 BTSX        21621
8350  ckolivas                        1.4502067590 % 2        0        100.00 %      100 %    4.71498 BTSX        21637
8355  andresen                        1.4502067590 % 2        0        100.00 %      100 %    4.71424 BTSX        21639
8349  sunnyking                       1.4502067590 % 2        0        100.00 %      100 %    4.71412 BTSX        21666
8345  rockxie                         1.4502067590 % 2        0        100.00 %      100 %    4.71360 BTSX        21701
8352  tysat                           1.4502067590 % 2        0        100.00 %      100 %    4.71350 BTSX        21707
8347  hazek                           1.4502067590 % 2        0        100.00 %      100 %    4.71343 BTSX        21667
8357  malevolent                      1.4502067589 % 2        0        100.00 %      100 %    4.71303 BTSX        21697
8348  linode                          1.4502066412 % 1        1        50.00 %       100 %    2.35834 BTSX        21538

How do you realize that is the same person?

[Xeldal]

more of the same BS

8354  grue                            1.4502068769 % 3        0        100.00 %      100 %    7.07166 BTSX        21668
8351  bitrick                         1.4502068768 % 3        0        100.00 %      100 %    7.06998 BTSX        21733
8356  gmaxwell                        1.4502068767 % 3        0        100.00 %      100 %    7.06847 BTSX        21738
8353  horserider                      1.4502067591 % 2        0        100.00 %      100 %    4.71548 BTSX        21619
8346  cryptx                          1.4502067590 % 2        0        100.00 %      100 %    4.71501 BTSX        21621
8350  ckolivas                        1.4502067590 % 2        0        100.00 %      100 %    4.71498 BTSX        21637
8355  andresen                        1.4502067590 % 2        0        100.00 %      100 %    4.71424 BTSX        21639
8349  sunnyking                       1.4502067590 % 2        0        100.00 %      100 %    4.71412 BTSX        21666
8345  rockxie                         1.4502067590 % 2        0        100.00 %      100 %    4.71360 BTSX        21701
8352  tysat                           1.4502067590 % 2        0        100.00 %      100 %    4.71350 BTSX        21707
8347  hazek                           1.4502067590 % 2        0        100.00 %      100 %    4.71343 BTSX        21667
8357  malevolent                      1.4502067589 % 2        0        100.00 %      100 %    4.71303 BTSX        21697
8348  linode                          1.4502066412 % 1        1        50.00 %       100 %    2.35834 BTSX        21538

[bytemaster]

Where are negative votes when you need them...

[Xeldal]

2817  skynet                          1.5786321227 % 112      2        98.25 %       100 %    171.16786 BTSX      20764
5284  deepbit                         1.5786312836 % 86       1        98.85 %       100 %    157.52951 BTSX      20855
5283  slush                           1.5786309162 % 82       3        96.47 %       100 %    150.18198 BTSX      20854
7155  bitfury                         1.5786256690 % 19       0        100.00 %      100 %    45.25236 BTSX       20812
7159  ozcoin                          1.5786256687 % 19       0        100.00 %      100 %    45.24676 BTSX       20810
7188  darkwallet                      1.5786255496 % 18       0        100.00 %      100 %    42.86427 BTSX       20835
7168  zeroblock                       1.5786255493 % 18       0        100.00 %      100 %    42.85980 BTSX       20850
7154  blockerupter                    1.5786254310 % 17       0        100.00 %      100 %    40.49258 BTSX       20785
7152  bfl                             1.5786254302 % 17       1        94.44 %       100 %    40.47807 BTSX       20846
7182  bitpoint                        1.5786254302 % 17       1        94.44 %       100 %    40.47779 BTSX       20819
7177  ngzhang                         1.5786254299 % 17       1        94.44 %       100 %    40.47054 BTSX       20849
7274  eligius                         1.5786254297 % 17       0        100.00 %      100 %    40.46674 BTSX       20802
7161  tianhe                          1.5786253123 % 16       0        100.00 %      100 %    38.11956 BTSX       20719
7276  cloudhashing                    1.5786253106 % 16       1        94.12 %       100 %    38.08604 BTSX       20815
7277  bitcoinica                      1.5786251921 % 15       1        93.75 %       100 %    35.71654 BTSX       20851
7273  p2pool                          1.5786250739 % 14       1        93.33 %       100 %    33.35261 BTSX       20729

Clearly this is 1 person. 

I'm a little Disgusted.