RDPOS - Recommended Delegated Proof of Stake

[GaltReport]

I'm a bit curious if DacsUnlimited has defined a mission statement or target audience?  It's important to identify your target user(s).

Is it a Bank/Exchange for:

CryptoNerds?
Libertarians?
Chinese people?
Typical Bank/Exchange users?
Advanced Bank/Exchange users?
....

or some/all of the above?

Each of these groups have different and probably some overlapping values so they will have their own ideas of BENEFITS.

Crypto people are often very invested in the technical concepts, details and privacy.  Some of those values may clash with the values of a typical Banking/Exchange user.  I heard an interview with Bytemaster and it sounded like that is something that he has been thinking about with respect to the whole Decentralization idea. 

Just wondering what the desired end-state would be?  Replace your local Bank?  Replace Etrade?  Replace both?  or is this really something completely different and beyond all that?

[GaltReport]

Just a thought on penalizing people who don't vote...Keeping mind that I am no expert on this stuff by any means. I barely get it in many ways....BUT i would say that I think someone needs to focus a lot on the usability of the system for it's intended purpose by it's intended USERS

How much thought, time, energy do the expected USERS of the system want to put into VOTING?  Is that why they are using the system so they can spend time evaluating DELEGATES and voting for them?  I don't think so.  Sometimes we can get so caught up in the myriad of interesting and sometimes marginally more beneficial ways to do something and forget about how we encourage adoption and continued use of the system. 

Speaking for myself, I am for the Keep It Simple System as much as possible.  I don't want to spend much if any time voting for delegates....but I do want the system to be safe and secure.

Why not reward people for voting?

I think that's better, keeping in mind I'm only thinking of the end users point of view, not the economic or technical merits.

You have to think and talk USER BENEFITS to encourage use so making "money" is certainly a BENEFIT.  If anyone ever creates a user guide (good idea BTW) they should put all the technical details in an appendix for those who are interested but focus on BENEFITS and use of the system primarily.  Just put a small section with bolded catch phrases like "Delegated Proof of Stake" with a link to the appendix.  Don't put it in their face and force them to wade through it.  Many will be impressed enough by the cool catch phrases.   

However, my honest view is that as a USER of the system, I would expect the system to secure itself or to have the "carbon units" if there are any, take care of it.

I'm sure it must have been discussed before, but it seems like BTSX which is being burnt that is currently benefiting all shareholders, would have to be re-directed instead as dividends to active voters only, if that were technically possible.

Then the system will have fees that undercut the current trading system, a big benefit to users,  and if they take the time to vote occasionally they could actually earn a decent rate of interest, an even bigger benefit to users. (The fewer people voting the bigger the interest rate, so this system will naturally attract more voters if the voting pool becomes small.)

As a user, I would probably be interested in that.  Depending on the frequency of voting and as long as it wasn't required.

[Empirical1]

Just a thought on penalizing people who don't vote...Keeping mind that I am no expert on this stuff by any means. I barely get it in many ways....BUT i would say that I think someone needs to focus a lot on the usability of the system for it's intended purpose by it's intended USERS

How much thought, time, energy do the expected USERS of the system want to put into VOTING?  Is that why they are using the system so they can spend time evaluating DELEGATES and voting for them?  I don't think so.  Sometimes we can get so caught up in the myriad of interesting and sometimes marginally more beneficial ways to do something and forget about how we encourage adoption and continued use of the system. 

Speaking for myself, I am for the Keep It Simple System as much as possible.  I don't want to spend much if any time voting for delegates....but I do want the system to be safe and secure.

Why not reward people for voting?

I think that's better, keeping in mind I'm only thinking of the end users point of view, not the economic or technical merits.

You have to think and talk USER BENEFITS to encourage use so making "money" is certainly a BENEFIT.  If anyone ever creates a user guide (good idea BTW) they should put all the technical details in an appendix for those who are interested but focus on BENEFITS and use of the system primarily.  Just put a small section with bolded catch phrases like "Delegated Proof of Stake" with a link to the appendix.  Don't put it in their face and force them to wade through it.  Many will be impressed enough by the cool catch phrases.   

However, my honest view is that as a USER of the system, I would expect the system to secure itself or to have the "carbon units" if there are any, take care of it.

I'm sure it must have been discussed before, but it seems like BTSX which is being burnt that is currently benefiting all shareholders, would have to be re-directed instead as dividends to active voters only, if that were technically possible.

Then the system will have fees that undercut the current trading system, a big benefit to users,  and if they take the time to vote occasionally they could actually earn a decent rate of interest, an even bigger benefit to users. (The fewer people voting the bigger the interest rate, so this system will naturally attract more voters if the voting pool becomes small.)

[GaltReport]

Just a thought on penalizing people who don't vote...Keeping mind that I am no expert on this stuff by any means. I barely get it in many ways....BUT i would say that I think someone needs to focus a lot on the usability of the system for it's intended purpose by it's intended USERS

How much thought, time, energy do the expected USERS of the system want to put into VOTING?  Is that why they are using the system so they can spend time evaluating DELEGATES and voting for them?  I don't think so.  Sometimes we can get so caught up in the myriad of interesting and sometimes marginally more beneficial ways to do something and forget about how we encourage adoption and continued use of the system. 

Speaking for myself, I am for the Keep It Simple System as much as possible.  I don't want to spend much if any time voting for delegates....but I do want the system to be safe and secure.

Why not reward people for voting?

I think that's better, keeping in mind I'm only thinking of the end users point of view, not the economic or technical merits.

You have to think and talk USER BENEFITS to encourage use so making "money" is certainly a BENEFIT.  If anyone ever creates a user guide (good idea BTW) they should put all the technical details in an appendix for those who are interested but focus on BENEFITS and use of the system primarily.  Just put a small section with bolded catch phrases like "Delegated Proof of Stake" with a link to the appendix.  Don't put it in their face and force them to wade through it.  Many will be impressed enough by the cool catch phrases.   

However, my honest view is that as a USER of the system, I would expect the system to secure itself or to have the "carbon units" if there are any, take care of it. 

[luckybit]

Just a thought on penalizing people who don't vote...Keeping mind that I am no expert on this stuff by any means. I barely get it in many ways....BUT i would say that I think someone needs to focus a lot on the usability of the system for it's intended purpose by it's intended USERS

How much thought, time, energy do the expected USERS of the system want to put into VOTING?  Is that why they are using the system so they can spend time evaluating DELEGATES and voting for them?  I don't think so.  Sometimes we can get so caught up in the myriad of interesting and sometimes marginally more beneficial ways to do something and forget about how we encourage adoption and continued use of the system. 

Speaking for myself, I am for the Keep It Simple System as much as possible.  I don't want to spend much if any time voting for delegates....but I do want the system to be safe and secure.

Why not reward people for voting?

[luckybit]

One of our major challenges is making voting easy for the average person who doesn't have time to follow 101 different delegates.  For this reason we are going to make voting even easier:  you can delegate your selection of delegates to a single delegate.   How it works is this:

1) Every delegate may optionally specify a slate ID as part of their public data.  This slate ID identifies up to 101 delegates supported by that delegate.
2) Every user can select one or more delegates to approve of
3) The wallet will automatically combine the public slates of the delegates that user approves of to produce their votes.

Benefits:
1) More people voting with the same slate ID increases privacy
2) The default wallet can hard-code the developers own account as the default recommendation
3) Delegates are now competing not just on pay-rate, but also on how well balanced their selected slates are.
4) Users still have to transact to update their votes so they don't give up control of their votes, they merely have auto-recomendation.
5) More similar slates reduce block chain bloat.
6) Lobbying to become a delegate can now be focused toward existing delegates for endorsement. 
7) We can enable "down votes" that simply remove delegates from the "recommended set"

This is no more centralized than the current system and in-fact, encourages decentralization because delegates compete on making solid recommendations that include other delegates. 

With this in place there is no need to charge extra for not voting.

This almost resembles a web of trust.

[Empirical1]

Just a thought on penalizing people who don't vote...Keeping mind that I am no expert on this stuff by any means. I barely get it in many ways....BUT i would say that I think someone needs to focus a lot on the usability of the system for it's intended purpose by it's intended USERS

How much thought, time, energy do the expected USERS of the system want to put into VOTING?  Is that why they are using the system so they can spend time evaluating DELEGATES and voting for them?  I don't think so.  Sometimes we can get so caught up in the myriad of interesting and sometimes marginally more beneficial ways to do something and forget about how we encourage adoption and continued use of the system. 

Speaking for myself, I am for the Keep It Simple System as much as possible.  I don't want to spend much if any time voting for delegates....but I do want the system to be safe and secure.

  OK yes that makes sense. I would only want inactivity fees if the system was/becoming really insecure as a way to incentivise people to vote.

2) The default wallet can hard-code the developers own account as the default recommendation

I like something simple like that. Wouldn't the developers slate of delegates end up getting enough approval power that if the developer was compromised the system could be insecure? (What about giving delegates a smaller slate with a maximum of of 5-10 people?)

Otherwise I like the general idea. I see now the whole voting thing is not something most end users will necessarily want to participate in. They just want to use the thing and know that it is secure.

Edit:

I barely get it in many ways....

That's exactly how I feel 

[Pheonike]

Is there a limit to how many approvals and people can make?

[bytemaster]

Just a thought on penalizing people who don't vote...Keeping mind that I am no expert on this stuff by any means. I barely get it in many ways....BUT i would say that I think someone needs to focus a lot on the usability of the system for it's intended purpose by it's intended USERS

How much thought, time, energy do the expected USERS of the system want to put into VOTING?  Is that why they are using the system so they can spend time evaluating DELEGATES and voting for them?  I don't think so.  Sometimes we can get so caught up in the myriad of interesting and sometimes marginally more beneficial ways to do something and forget about how we encourage adoption and continued use of the system. 

Speaking for myself, I am for the Keep It Simple System as much as possible.  I don't want to spend much if any time voting for delegates....but I do want the system to be safe and secure.

Exactly!

[liondani]

%

[GaltReport]

Just a thought on penalizing people who don't vote...Keeping mind that I am no expert on this stuff by any means. I barely get it in many ways....BUT i would say that I think someone needs to focus a lot on the usability of the system for it's intended purpose by it's intended USERS

How much thought, time, energy do the expected USERS of the system want to put into VOTING?  Is that why they are using the system so they can spend time evaluating DELEGATES and voting for them?  I don't think so.  Sometimes we can get so caught up in the myriad of interesting and sometimes marginally more beneficial ways to do something and forget about how we encourage adoption and continued use of the system. 

Speaking for myself, I am for the Keep It Simple System as much as possible.  I don't want to spend much if any time voting for delegates....but I do want the system to be safe and secure.

[bytemaster]

We don't do automatic voting at this point in time.  The consensus algorithm cannot automatically bump people who do not produce because it could lead to a potential attack vector.

[Empirical1]

With this in place there is no need to charge extra for not voting.

Charging for not voting or psychologically better giving those an advantage that vote could still have a positive effect.
Thoughts?
Pro: more participation in voting means it is harder for "bad stake" to get and stay in the top 101.
Con: those that don't want to vote do not see the benefit in voting in the first place and might make unqualified votes then. They might just vote for one random delegate to get the benefit.

Yeah I agree, if there's no measurable individual advantage to voting, apathy may be a problem.
I think I read somewhere that NXT only has 30% forging participation and they have some big whales.
I doubt we could expect more than 25% of the BTSX stake to vote and much less actively vote.

Does DPOS currently automatically remove approval from delegates that are not technically performing well?

[santaclause102]

With this in place there is no need to charge extra for not voting.

Charging for not voting or psychologically better giving those an advantage that vote could still have a positive effect.
Thoughts?
Pro: more participation in voting means it is harder for "bad stake" to get and stay in the top 101.
Con: those that don't want to vote do not see the benefit in voting in the first place and might make unqualified votes then. They might just vote for one random delegate to get the benefit.   

[Empirical1]

Lol @ me being example bad guy.  How'd people figure it out ?!

No you're looking at it wrong, anybody could turn out to be bad, but you were someone I could definitely see myself & others voting for right now, so you're the good example guy   

As for the other stuff, I'll watch from the sidelines a bit, I need to get up to speed with how voting technically works right now & also what it is possible to implement etc.