【SUN】team,cooperate with alt/michaelcat/btc38/charity campaign,need you vote!

[xeroc]

Thanks for your correction. But in 1-share-101-votes, how many delegate position could  I occupy if I had 8% of total shares according to current situation? Wouldn't it be 93 (#9~#101)?

Currently .. yes you could replace all that have less than 8% and are delegate

[Gentso1]

With centralization being a concern of many and there only being 101 spots, Do you feel that it is in the best interest of the network for a single person to control more then one position?
I have been noticing a trend of single parties running more then one delegate.  With some users all ready questioning how De-centralized are we really, are we just compounding the problem by running more then delegate per person?

Other then that your mission statement sounds great.

Thanks for your question, and I think you are correct.
More than one delegate from single party is not good for decentralization.
However, it is difficult to stop it from this angle, because one person with plenty shares can actually have 2 accounts belonging to 2 teams for instance. Just like  pleople could have multiple wallets.
I think the key is that one share should not be able to vote for more than one delegate.
From the wiki of DPOS, you can find the following 2 statements:

1. Currently each share can vote for a max of 1/3 of the amount of active delegates in any round (currently 101 / 3 = 33)
2. Every shareholder gets to vote for someone to sign blocks in their stead (a representative if you will). Anyone who can gain 1% or more of the votes can join the board.

but as you can see, 1-share-33-votes could amplify the vantage of people with a buck loads of shares. Currently, to be the 101th delegate you need 7.0604811640 % of votes, which is far more than 1%. If I had 8% of total shares, I can generate 33 delegates with 8% votes (and occupy delegate position from #9 to #41) based on  current rule and situation. However, in 1-share-1-vote, 8% of total shares could occupy 8 delegate position at most.

Thanks so much for your insight. You bring up some really great points.

I don't have a answer to the issue I presented to you to be completely honest. I don't know that any of us have the answer at this point. I am just glad that you recognize it for what it is, a issue.

I think delegates openly running more then one account are just adding to the problem when there is more then enough separate people that are willing to share the load.

I also believe, I agree with you in the fact that we need to change the technology in a way that maybe it is a limited number of votes per share. The system as I understand it now allows and single large stake holder to vote in delegates of his or her liking over and over and over again. While a 101 delegates could look like decentralize, if a single person or group of people that have large stakes approve of every delegate  that fits into his or her club it starts looking like a centralized effort under the guise of being separate(which makes it look even worse).

You bring up some really good arguments that I think would could improve on as a whole that I haven't considered before, thank you .

[麥可貓]

That wiki is outdated, you can vote up to 101

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

Thanks for your correction. But in 1-share-101-votes, how many delegate position could  I occupy if I had 8% of total shares according to current situation? Wouldn't it be 93 (#9~#101)?

[toast]

That wiki is outdated, you can vote up to 101

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[麥可貓]

With centralization being a concern of many and there only being 101 spots, Do you feel that it is in the best interest of the network for a single person to control more then one position?
I have been noticing a trend of single parties running more then one delegate.  With some users all ready questioning how De-centralized are we really, are we just compounding the problem by running more then delegate per person?

Other then that your mission statement sounds great.

Thanks for your question, and I think you are correct.
More than one delegate from single party is not good for decentralization.
However, it is difficult to stop it from this angle, because one person with plenty shares can actually have 2 accounts belonging to 2 teams for instance. Just like  pleople could have multiple wallets.
I think the key is that one share should not be able to vote for more than one delegate.
From the wiki of DPOS, you can find the following 2 statements:

1. Currently each share can vote for a max of 1/3 of the amount of active delegates in any round (currently 101 / 3 = 33)
2. Every shareholder gets to vote for someone to sign blocks in their stead (a representative if you will). Anyone who can gain 1% or more of the votes can join the board.

but as you can see, 1-share-33-votes could amplify the vantage of people with a buck loads of shares. Currently, to be the 101th delegate you need 7.0604811640 % of votes, which is far more than 1%. If I had 8% of total shares, I can generate 33 delegates with 8% votes (and occupy delegate position from #9 to #41) based on  current rule and situation. However, in 1-share-1-vote, 8% of total shares could occupy 8 delegate position at most.

Supplementary opinion from PTS中國:
In 1-share-1-vote, people with plenty shares have to vote more cauciously, otherwise they could have less delegate positions than they should have. Therefore, the cost of occupying delegate position is elevated, and so does the value of 1 BTSX

[Gentso1]

this has already been discussed and the market will sort the duplicated out once the competetion is going forward ... sooner or later the number of individuals controlling the 101 delegates will be about 60 .. then .. 80 ..

I know it has been talked about some but as someone who is lobbying to be a delegate I am trying to make a point for other "voter's" to base there decision's off of.

Just because it has been discussed before should we as voters, delegates, users not bringing up possible flaws/weakness.

With there being a abundance of people competing for this delegate positions why should we not tackle the duplicate issue now?

I would like to hear a response from the candidate and his thoughts on the duplicate issue. Perhaps his position is that there is no harm in a single person controlling multiple accounts. 

[xeroc]

this has already been discussed and the market will sort the duplicated out once the competetion is going forward ... sooner or later the number of individuals controlling the 101 delegates will be about 60 .. then .. 80 ..

[Gentso1]

With centralization being a concern of many and there only being 101 spots, Do you feel that it is in the best interest of the network for a single person to control more then one position?
I have been noticing a trend of single parties running more then one delegate.  With some users all ready questioning how De-centralized are we really, are we just compounding the problem by running more then delegate per person?

Other then that your mission statement sounds great.

[cass]

Go for it 

[Overthetop]

 

[KeyhoteeCN]

[Musewhale]

 

[PTS中国]

 

[当年很厉害]

lol

[KeyhoteeCN]

All you have done a good work!

thank you