Author Topic: Criteria for selecting delegates  (Read 19960 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline CoinHoarder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 660
  • In Cryptocoins I Trust
    • View Profile
I would appreciate your votes. I have no problem revealing my identity. My participation is a bit low right now, but that is because I've only been a delegate for a couple days. I made a silly error on the first day and missed 8 blocks which gave me 0% participation <facepalm.jpg>. I fixed the problem and my participation has increased to above 90%.. it should get better as I am keeping a close eye on my VPN and updating price feeds regularly. I have good trust in the Bitcoin and  Litecoin community, and have been operating Bitcoin/Litecoin mining farms for about two years now so I am more than capable of operating a delegate. My pay rate is 75%, no charities or anything at the moment! but I am helping out in other ways around the forums as much as possible. Along with telling people about Bitshares on Bitcointalk on my main thread and defending it on others: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=225659.0

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

You can tie my identity to my login by running a "whois" on my business' domain: cryptovest.com and with the following information.

I am Coinhoarder from Bitcointalk.org aka. William E Connatser III

I have signed with this PGP signature multiple times, including here on Bitcointalk when confirming the addresses of the Cryptovest 'special edition' coins:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=286027.msg5667149#msg5667149

You can also see my name in the "about us" page of my website a bit below the text "why choose us":
https://cryptovest.com/about-us/

I own the Coinhoarder account on bitsharestalk.org, and my only BitsharesX delegate is delegate.coinhoarder
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJT/iupAAoJEGh5rAmFxx58cg4IAJKRTRhTIbFliQz5RSeT603M
x74HNBW5k0u8dhoaI4oggOpty0GrsiZ4cFHcQxOZHzrie7S2Q/uB0dxW0jfQ6HAA
Th++LhFICSUNvelw5yL4cmpOzCuNIOZwGLxzubOaahJug76IbR617VdcKyPoDuKz
jn/wsV0FNsiGqJN+jNiIUuxQE6AjxZw8cOhlaNN1kc+iHMTM2FmjvDL1DssoXe3f
KbaT8zt/rpzp2TMK+cZLLrngJQ4Xl3Tldisrlc4AmS3TadrNmuf7gjabgucvIpX1
s2JuV0DZ2ZeHYcsAF12SaYfo2UutDi9dAAI2xQwbha/ypzR+BZ0mRCh44fC0wUg=
=iske
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

PGP Key: https://cryptovest.com/40F0E7A9D5FBE20F16DE80E86879AC0985C71E7C.asc
« Last Edit: August 27, 2014, 08:35:04 pm by CoinHoarder »
https://www.decentralized.tech/ -> Market Data, Portfolios, Information, Links, Reviews, Forums, Blogs, Etc.
https://www.cryptohun.ch/ -> Tradable Blockchain Asset PvP Card Game

Offline emski

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1282
    • View Profile
    • http://lnkd.in/nPbhxG
The link to my linkedin profile is public and visible through my forum user details.

Offline svk

I don't see how providing multiple highly reliable delegates is harmful, especially when it's obvious that they're from the same person through the use of sub accounts.

Theoretical maybe you are right...But practical it would harm the network in my opinion...
To make an extreme example with your logic...

Let's suppose the most reliable and trusted delegates right now are the "init" delegates...
That means it would be ok to have 101 "init" delegates active...

...do you see now the consequences?

The same consequences, not at the same scale of-course, would apply  for examples not so extreme but with identical logic?

I don't think that's the same though, the init delegates are anonymous but supposedly controlled by Dacsunlimited, however they don't use subaccounts and should get phased out as the network grows and more reliable delegates emerge.

I'm fairly certain noone would ever get voted in using 51 or even 10 delegates using the same account with subaccounts, and that's why it is important to use subaccounts. This is also why it's important to vote for delegates that you know who are, whether it be by their real identity as some of you prefer, or their forum handle in my case. In my opinion the main thing is that you have to be able to tie the delegate to a person.

Everyone should know by now that I control the "x.svk31" delegates, so if you prefer to only vote for the main one please do so. Since I'm using sub accounts you won't mistakenly vote for another delegate controlled by me just because it's already in the top 101 and has high reliability. 



Worker: dev.bitsharesblocks

Offline kokojie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 286
    • View Profile
I only run 1 delegate id, and my info see my signature.

Offline maqifrnswa

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 661
    • View Profile
I don't see how providing multiple highly reliable delegates is harmful, especially when it's obvious that they're from the same person through the use of sub accounts.

Theoretical maybe you are right...But practical it would harm the network in my opinion...
To make an extreme example with your logic...

Let's suppose the most reliable and trusted delegates right now are the "init" delegates...
That means it would be ok to have 101 "init" delegates active...

...do you see now the consequences?

The same consequences, not at the same scale of-course, would apply  for examples not so extreme but with identical logic?

the opposite of that:
Imagine two separate delegates each with a 1% payrate. For whatever reason, expenses are larger than cost. They cannot raise rates, so both turn off both nodes. The network loses two active delegates at the same time.  It would have been better if both were controlled by the same person, they could consolidate the delegates to single machine, temporarily, as a way to keep things running in a dry spell.

it would be best if there were two nodes run by two separate people that could bump their rates to 2% and keep running - but the rules don't allow that.
maintains an Ubuntu PPA: https://launchpad.net/~showard314/+archive/ubuntu/bitshares [15% delegate] wallet_account_set_approval maqifrnswa true [50% delegate] wallet_account_set_approval delegate1.maqifrnswa true

Offline liondani

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3737
  • Inch by inch, play by play
    • View Profile
    • My detailed info
  • BitShares: liondani
  • GitHub: liondani
I don't see how providing multiple highly reliable delegates is harmful, especially when it's obvious that they're from the same person through the use of sub accounts.

Theoretical maybe you are right...But practical it would harm the network in my opinion...
To make an extreme example with your logic...

Let's suppose the most reliable and trusted delegates right now are the "init" delegates...
That means it would be ok to have 101 "init" delegates active...

...do you see now the consequences?

The same consequences, not at the same scale of-course, would apply  for examples not so extreme but with identical logic?

Offline maqifrnswa

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 661
    • View Profile
In general, I'm for only one delegate per person - but the rules right now almost force you to get more than one:

1) you're not allowed to raise rates and 2) you're not allowed to "turn off" delegates without voting them out.
Therefore, if you want a dynamic payrate that follows the market, you have to have more than one delegate set up like liondani did.

I also think that someone with reliable two delegates well below the average delegate payrate is better than have two people with two different delegates with 100% payrates.

It would be best if there is only one, but the rules of the game give you incentives to have more than one.
maintains an Ubuntu PPA: https://launchpad.net/~showard314/+archive/ubuntu/bitshares [15% delegate] wallet_account_set_approval maqifrnswa true [50% delegate] wallet_account_set_approval delegate1.maqifrnswa true

Offline svk

I refuse to vote more than 1 delegate per person. Furthermore, if a person has more than a couple of delegates in the top 101 I will do my best to vote them ALL out. It is harmful and should be discouraged.
I agree with your focus on reputation. 

I disagree about refusing to vote for anyone running multiple delegates. 

I think it is helpful if very trusted members of the community run more than one delegate as a candidate (at least until we have more than 101 great delegate candidates).  They should be named in a clear way to make it obvious they are all related (use sub accounts).  They should also be clearly ordered by priority so if you are only going to vote for one of their delegates you vote for delegate "1".

for example:
1.alphaBar  -> this is your primary delegate, encourage people to vote for this one if they only want you to have one delegate.
2.alphaBar  -> this is your secondary, if someone really trusts and likes you a lot they may vote for both your primary and secondary delegate.
3.alphaBar  -> this is your tertiary

If it gets very competitive and we have lots of great candidates and we don't allow more than 101 delegates (I prefer a dynamic number) than it could get to the point where few if any would be able to get more than their primary delegate elected.  But, I don't think we should judge people negatively for running multiple delegate candidates in a transparent way.  If someone was caught trying to run sockpuppets without being upfront then that is a problem and a trust issue.

 +5%

Your post sums up perfectly how I feel about this, and your example is almost exactly how my delegates are set up.

I don't see how providing multiple highly reliable delegates is harmful, especially when it's obvious that they're from the same person through the use of sub accounts.
« Last Edit: August 27, 2014, 02:06:21 pm by svk »
Worker: dev.bitsharesblocks

Offline santaclause102

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2486
    • View Profile
In fact, it increases the chance for bad stake to vote many of his delegates into the top 101 by a lot if shareholders vote for anything less than 101 delegates .

Under the conditions of approval voting it is more beneficial to the network if all 101 votes are split among a handful of delegates you trust than to vote only for a few single delegates.

Offline liondani

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3737
  • Inch by inch, play by play
    • View Profile
    • My detailed info
  • BitShares: liondani
  • GitHub: liondani
If it gets very competitive and we have lots of great candidates and we don't allow more than 101 delegates (I prefer a dynamic number) than it could get to the point where few if any would be able to get more than their primary delegate elected.  But, I don't think we should judge people negatively for running multiple delegate candidates in a transparent way.  If someone was caught trying to run sockpuppets without being upfront then that is a problem and a trust issue.

1.I prefer a dynamic number of delegates also.
2.I thing we have allready enough great candidates but the most are in standby mode because candidates with much vote power have multiple delegates voted in...
3.We must consider that the competition will use the multiple delegate phenomena in a negative way...It's a shame to give them such an oportunity. So we must in a consensus way self regulate
   "our delegate election policy" :P
4.It is better* to have 101 individual delegates active with an average reliability of 90% (for example) then 65 individual delegates that have all 100% reliability... Am I missing something?


*not for security only but for marketing/image reasons also...

Offline liondani

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3737
  • Inch by inch, play by play
    • View Profile
    • My detailed info
  • BitShares: liondani
  • GitHub: liondani
If you are willing to pledge to never run more than 1 delegate and/or to reveal your identity, please do so here and list your delegate.

as I said on my thread also, I have concluded that the best for all of us is one delegate per individual...

1.more secure network
2.more decentralized
3.fair for the standby delegates
4.Don't give the chance to the competitors/haters to accuse us to be too centralized!

I want your votes only for one delegate:
delegate.liondani
and vote out my delegates liondani & liondani-delegate-1 please  ;)

So yes I promise to have only 1 delegate at any point of time after delegate.liondani get's active in place of my "old" ones  ;)
My identity is revealed as alphabar already mentioned.  https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=6406.0
« Last Edit: August 27, 2014, 01:38:05 pm by liondani »

Offline Agent86

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 471
  • BTSX: agent86
    • View Profile
I refuse to vote more than 1 delegate per person. Furthermore, if a person has more than a couple of delegates in the top 101 I will do my best to vote them ALL out. It is harmful and should be discouraged.
I agree with your focus on reputation. 

I disagree about refusing to vote for anyone running multiple delegates. 

I think it is helpful if very trusted members of the community run more than one delegate as a candidate (at least until we have more than 101 great delegate candidates).  They should be named in a clear way to make it obvious they are all related (use sub accounts).  They should also be clearly ordered by priority so if you are only going to vote for one of their delegates you vote for delegate "1".

for example:
1.alphaBar  -> this is your primary delegate, encourage people to vote for this one if they only want you to have one delegate.
2.alphaBar  -> this is your secondary, if someone really trusts and likes you a lot they may vote for both your primary and secondary delegate.
3.alphaBar  -> this is your tertiary

If it gets very competitive and we have lots of great candidates and we don't allow more than 101 delegates (I prefer a dynamic number) than it could get to the point where few if any would be able to get more than their primary delegate elected.  But, I don't think we should judge people negatively for running multiple delegate candidates in a transparent way.  If someone was caught trying to run sockpuppets without being upfront then that is a problem and a trust issue.

Offline santaclause102

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2486
    • View Profile
It would be great to have web of trust built into the BitShares client (and blockchain) directly.
The real power lies with DPOS plus Toast's KeyID efforts!

Agree with
Quote
But there is also the other question of whether having the identity of a delegate publicly known (and thus also known to attackers) would make the system less secure.
don't realy know what is the better side of this trade of.
« Last Edit: August 27, 2014, 01:47:20 pm by delulo »

Offline arhag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
    • My posts on Steem
  • BitShares: arhag
  • GitHub: arhag
It would be great to have web of trust built into the BitShares client (and blockchain) directly.

Offline maqifrnswa

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 661
    • View Profile
I suppose public identities could work if we could actually have face to face discussions with the delegate to understand that they really are community members and have the technical know-how.

And that doesn't have to be done in person. We could use Hangouts on Air, or even Mumble after associating the delegate's voice to their voice in the YouTube video.

But there is also the other question of whether having the identity of a delegate publicly known (and thus also known to attackers) would make the system less secure.

There are other ways, such as gpg web of trust. That's how I verified my identity, at least within the crypto and open source community.
maintains an Ubuntu PPA: https://launchpad.net/~showard314/+archive/ubuntu/bitshares [15% delegate] wallet_account_set_approval maqifrnswa true [50% delegate] wallet_account_set_approval delegate1.maqifrnswa true