PROPOSAL: Fair and Distributed Delegates

[bytemaster]

Also my proposal is for the numbers 101 and 1001 to be dynamically adjusted. You can start with 101/101 which is what you have right now

That just means fees go up in the long-run...

[bitmeat]

Also my proposal is for the numbers 101 and 1001 to be dynamically adjusted. You can start with 101/101 which is what you have right now

[bitmeat]

So implement online presence for delegates and only pick from the ones that are running.

[bytemaster]

In short you have not read the economics of the situation.  Your proposal costs 10x as much for the network to operate.

Because 1001 delegates need to be running in case they get selected, instead of 101? How is that different at the moment, all the pending candidates are running a node anyways.

Because once you are in you still need to break even.   In your bid to become a delegate you may have to front some costs, but if you don't get any traction you shut it down.  Under your system 1001 people need to be up at all times.

[bitmeat]

In short you have not read the economics of the situation.  Your proposal costs 10x as much for the network to operate.

Because 1001 delegates need to be running in case they get selected, instead of 101? How is that different at the moment, all the pending candidates are running a node anyways.

[bytemaster]

In short you have not read the economics of the situation.  Your proposal costs 10x as much for the network to operate.

[bitmeat]

Updated in red so proposal is more clear.

[emski]

I like the idea.
However there should be another variable missed/produced blocks ratio. It should penalise low-performing delegates.
And perhaps not all the seats should be random. Top 10 voted delegates should stay regardless.

[bitmeat]

These are assumptions, correct me if wrong. We have 101 slots reserved for elect delegates, rearranged every 101 blocks.

PROPOSAL:

Each batch of 101 blocks randomly assign 101 delegates based on certain total % (adjustable) of their total votes.

EXAMPLES:

A1-A10 have 20% of the votes (2% each)
B1-B20 have 20% of the votes (1% each)
C1-C40 have 20% of the votes (0.5% each)
D1-D100 have 20% of the votes (0.2% each)
E1-E1000 have 20% of the votes (0.02% each)

In our configuration each of the groups will technically have equal chance to get a delegate to "represent" them.

A typical example might be that each batch you could have a good distribution of delegates, should closely represent the following:

21 A (technically I only listed 10 delegates above)
20 B
20 C
20 D
20 E

This means that the delegates in the E section will have a very tiny chance of getting selected, but will have a very big chance of having a delegate picked out.

To Bytemaster, please consider this option. Otherwise whoever has the highest stake, dominates the delegate selection and nothing is stopping them from having 100% delegates even if they only have 20% of the BTSX.


---

IN SHORT:

We currently have 101 out of 101 elect delegates. Make elections every batch and pick 101 out of 1001, such that chance to get selected is proportional to vote count. Make the two numbers adjustable via proposals + shareholder voting.