Criteria for selecting delegates

[gamey]

Exposing your realword identity is the single biggest deterrent to doing anything malicious. If you support this flawed assumption that it is "impossible" to do anything malicious then I guess you can worry more about 99.9% uptime vs. 99.85% uptime. But if security is your objective then there is nothing more important than realworld identity. As a delegate, if your pseudonym or online reputation is worth less to you than the potential bounty of an attack then we have no recourse against you. If we know your real identity then you will also think about jail time or worse (a much stronger deterrent).

Edit: unnecessary quotes

You have this halfway backwards.  Revealing your identity could open you up to jail time (or worse) regardless of your performance as a delegate.

For example, if it is known I am sitting on a few million in USD via BTSX, it is far far less safe for me to have my real identity known.  The same thing can be said if BTSX comes under some unforseen legal attack.

The implied threats about ... jail time "or worse"... are borderline silly and about as flawed as anything in this thread. 

[alphaBar]

Alright, perhaps I was incorrect in using the term 'requiring', but some comments from users here are along the lines of not voting for anyone who does not disclose their real life identities, and voting out users who don't disclose identities is excluding users who believe privacy is important.

Here is what it boils down to: people can vote however they like. Some people want to vote for people whose identity they know. Some people don't care about identity. We can argue about the advantages and disadvantages of each, but for you (and others) to come here and start bullying people because they have different voting preferences than you is wrong. Who are you to tell me that I cannot vote out delegates whose identity I don't know and trust??? That is the entire point of DPOS - you vote how you want and I vote how I want, each according to his values and criteria. I don't care if you disagree with me but when you start acting machismo (like the dude who had to let us know that he carries a gun lol) and threatening other people because of their voluntary voting preferences you are just making yourself look stupid.

What do you forsee malicious users being able to pull off with one delegate node? Surely this system is more secure than being able to fall victim to one delegate? If you're worried about one user having 50 different identities and 50 delegates, then don't vote in users who offer nothing back to the community.

I described one such attack above. And FYI there is really no way to know for sure the number of delegates that a particular user is running.

On another note - if someone was to break the btsx system, there would be no legal consequences.. this isn't a regulated system, nor is running a delegate providing you a legally binding contract. The real life consequences you refer to sounds like promoting psychopathic vigilantism.

Wrong again. Cryptocurrencies are treated as a commodity asset (ie, property) in most legal jurisdictions, and as a currency in others. Stealing property/money is illegal in most places and can land you in jail. Apparently punishing people for theft is "psychopathic vigilantism." I don't even... how could.... sometimes I don't even know why I try...

[cryptillionaire]

I also massively oppose requiring delegates to provide their real life identities.[...]

Either you are trolling or you have horrible reading comprehension. Please show me where anyone proposed making this a requirement??? As mentioned in nearly every single post in this thread: we are talking about VOLUNTARY information. Your concerns about providing realworld identity are valid and as I stated previously, I SHARE THOSE CONCERNS. This is why I am not a delegate. Please stop distorting the positions of other people and spreading misinformation. People like YOU are on my radar...

All of that being said, I place a heavy emphasis on identity verification in who I vote for. Identity matters. As an example, imagine the guys who run BTC-E (anonymously) decide to shut down their site and walk away with millions of dollars in deposits. As a depositor, what recourse do you have without knowing their identity??? Now, imagine we already knew their real-world identities. How likely are they to try anything malicious? Are they more likely or less likely? Common sense.

Alright, perhaps I was incorrect in using the term 'requiring', but some comments from users here are along the lines of not voting for anyone who does not disclose their real life identities, and voting out users who don't disclose identities is excluding users who believe privacy is important.

What do you forsee malicious users being able to pull off with one delegate node? Surely this system is more secure than being able to fall victim to one delegate? If you're worried about one user having 50 different identities and 50 delegates, then don't vote in users who offer nothing back to the community.

On another note - if someone was to break the btsx system, there would be no legal consequences.. this isn't a regulated system, nor is running a delegate providing you a legally binding contract. The real life consequences you refer to sounds like promoting psychopathic vigilantism.

[ripplexiaoshan]

1/Reputation on this forum, but identification is not necessary, because leaking personal information of delegates may result in more specific attack from hackers.
2/technical competence
3/pay rate, contribution to community
4/ Although a strong team may control more than one delegate, multiple delegates can not be on the same VPS.

[alphaBar]

So far, the following delegates have revealed their identity:
...


If you are willing to reveal your identity, please do so here and list your delegate. PM me if you'd like to modify/remove this info.

Could you please add my delegate to the list?  I have only one delegate and there is an introduction page here : https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=8204.msg107400#msg107400

All I see is your first name. I'm not specifying what needs to be disclosed to be included in the list, but I think it should be more than that (see what others have done). I think it would also be worth offering I3 to perform the verification somehow (if they are willing). They can comment here if that's an option.

[alphaBar]

I also massively oppose requiring delegates to provide their real life identities.[...]

Either you are trolling or you have horrible reading comprehension. Please show me where anyone proposed making this a requirement??? As mentioned in nearly every single post in this thread: we are talking about VOLUNTARY information. Your concerns about providing realworld identity are valid and as I stated previously, I SHARE THOSE CONCERNS. This is why I am not a delegate. Please stop distorting the positions of other people and spreading misinformation. People like YOU are on my radar...

All of that being said, I place a heavy emphasis on identity verification in who I vote for. Identity matters. As an example, imagine the guys who run BTC-E (anonymously) decide to shut down their site and walk away with millions of dollars in deposits. As a depositor, what recourse do you have without knowing their identity??? Now, imagine we already knew their real-world identities. How likely are they to try anything malicious? Are they more likely or less likely? Common sense.

[cryptillionaire]

I also massively oppose requiring delegates to provide their real life identities. It straight up goes against the point of titan, and comes across as heavily suspicious why you're so interested in  this information. Btsx is in an extremely grey area legally, no doubt it will be under the gaze of governments before long, and I don't want to be dragged away and thrown into guantanamo Bay for hosting a decentralized banking/exchange system. Anyone demanding real life information should first provide their own real life Id to prove they don't work for an intelligence agency/government.

I believe this is a very valid concern for many people. There are also those who like to keep their privacy from some strangers who may disturb (eg stalking, spamming) their real life in person.  On the other hand, the bitshare community needs to know their voted delegates are reliable and do not suddenly 'disappear'.  Perhaps one approach is for the delegate candidate to provide information that the community can use to access his/her reputation and/or track records.  What do you think?

Something we really need to research is the impact that one delegate can actually have on the network.
It takes 51% of the network hashrate to attack POW, and 51% of the coins to attack POS.
It's my understanding that DPOS is far more secure than both of these systems.
If I had 5 delegates, with 100% reliability and no/few missed blocks, I don't see how I could overpower or corrupt/hurt the network. But if it was possible, what is the impact that a malicious user could have?

Perhaps we should really focus on only voting for delegates who have a really strong candidate campaign, who run services related to btsx (verification of id from site/twitter to here), and vote out those who have nothing to lose if they were to do something bad?
I'm looking into creating 4 delgates, and I don't think having 4/101 delegates is a negative thing. If i'm hosting them around the world on a powerful cloud provider and I have 99-100% reliability then I don't see the problem, especially if i have a very strong campaign and begin to create services for btsx to prove that I am not malicious.

[amencon]

Please add me to your list alphaBar, delegate alecmenconi.  If you'd like other verification provided then please ask.  My delegate name is just my first and last name.

Here is my introduction post: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=8163.0

I fully support anyone that values their privacy and wants to keep their identity hidden.  Everybody can use the system anonymously but if enough people want verification of identities of their delegates then they will vote out those delegates unwilling to cooperate which also seems perfectly fair.

[cube]

I also massively oppose requiring delegates to provide their real life identities. It straight up goes against the point of titan, and comes across as heavily suspicious why you're so interested in  this information. Btsx is in an extremely grey area legally, no doubt it will be under the gaze of governments before long, and I don't want to be dragged away and thrown into guantanamo Bay for hosting a decentralized banking/exchange system. Anyone demanding real life information should first provide their own real life Id to prove they don't work for an intelligence agency/government.

I believe this is a very valid concern for many people. There are also those who like to keep their privacy from some strangers who may disturb (eg stalking, spamming) their real life in person.  On the other hand, the bitshare community needs to know their voted delegates are reliable and do not suddenly 'disappear'.  Perhaps one approach is for the delegate candidate to provide information that the community can use to access his/her reputation and/or track records.  What do you think?

[cube]

So far, the following delegates have revealed their identity:
...


If you are willing to reveal your identity, please do so here and list your delegate. PM me if you'd like to modify/remove this info.

Could you please add my delegate to the list?  I have only one delegate and there is an introduction page here : https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=8204.msg107400#msg107400

[cryptillionaire]

I also massively oppose requiring delegates to provide their real life identities. It straight up goes against the point of titan, and comes across as heavily suspicious why you're so interested in  this information. Btsx is in an extremely grey area legally, no doubt it will be under the gaze of governments before long, and I don't want to be dragged away and thrown into guantanamo Bay for hosting a decentralized banking/exchange system. Anyone demanding real life information should first provide their own real life Id to prove they don't work for an intelligence agency/government.

[GaltReport]

Exposing your realword identity is the single biggest deterrent to doing anything malicious. If you support this flawed assumption that it is "impossible" to do anything malicious then I guess you can worry more about 99.9% uptime vs. 99.85% uptime. But if security is your objective then there is nothing more important than realworld identity. As a delegate, if your pseudonym or online reputation is worth less to you than the potential bounty of an attack then we have no recourse against you. If we know your real identity then you will also think about jail time or worse (a much stronger deterrent).

Edit: unnecessary quotes

I understand your reasoning here but this should be strictly voluntary.  Some people (like myself) value their privacy and security HIGHLY and you can actually endanger people by "Doxing" (exposing their identify or other personally identifiable information) them and I am against that.  This information can be used to attack them, their systems, their family, friends and their finances.

Governments for one are very fond of gathering information on people for "good reason" as well.  Trust them, it's all for our own good!!

I have experienced this first hand on multiple levels which is why I am immediately suspicious of ANYONE who trys to identify other people online and I keep my eyes on those people. 

If you are on any forum that I participate in, I am keeping track of EVERYONE who asks people for Personally Identifiable Information (PII). You are on MY LIST.    "Give us your name, address, what kind of system, how much BTSX do you have etc..."  Sure I will, NOT!!  I AM WATCHING YOU (two fingers from my eyes to YOU).    Watch the Watchers!

It is no joke to me. This is also why I (legally) carry. 

Nevertheless, I have offered to identify myself to BM & Stan anytime since they are not far from me.

Your childish response adds nothing of value to the conversation, and I'm offended that you would imply that I don't value privacy. Of course there is no doxxing and the ID part is voluntary - nobody implied otherwise. This is exactly why I am not a delegate and probably will not be one anytime soon. I am not willing to expose my identity, but I will only vote for delegates whose realword identity I know. No contradiction there. I think of being a delegate as a business decision. It has risks and it has potential rewards. If you are not willing to accept those risks you will forego the reward.

The beauty of DPOS is that we only need about 100 people who are willing to accept those risks. Many of them are already publicly involved in crypto (e.g., Dan, Adam Levine, maybe Andreas A in the future, etc). Delegates in DPOS will converge on public and widely trusted personalities such as these. For you to imply that I am doxxing people or urging them to reveal their identity shows that you either completely misunderstood my point or you misunderstand the incentives and risks involved in DPOS. I am a shareholder and I need to protect my investment by voting for delegates I can trust, not some pseudonymous account on a website with nothing to lose. Get it?

I am also a shareholder and vote!!  I don't think you know or care very much about about what people have to lose or have lost, other than yourself perhaps.

The beauty of these systems in my opinion is that they should be able to be secured via technology/cryptography not by personalities. 

Knowing someone (or more likely, thinking that you do) does not make them or the system secure or trustworthy!!

I know who George Bush is, John McCain, Barack Obama, Ben Bernanke are....Do I trust them because they are out kissing babies and giving speeches?

F**k NO!!

Has knowing who these people are deterred them from screwing people?  One of the prime motivations of many of the pioneers of this field has been to AVOID HAVING TO TRUSTING PEOPLE with your PII.

BTW, If you have no bad intentions that's great.  No worries then.

[alphaBar]

Exposing your realword identity is the single biggest deterrent to doing anything malicious. If you support this flawed assumption that it is "impossible" to do anything malicious then I guess you can worry more about 99.9% uptime vs. 99.85% uptime. But if security is your objective then there is nothing more important than realworld identity. As a delegate, if your pseudonym or online reputation is worth less to you than the potential bounty of an attack then we have no recourse against you. If we know your real identity then you will also think about jail time or worse (a much stronger deterrent).

Edit: unnecessary quotes

I understand your reasoning here but this should be strictly voluntary.  Some people (like myself) value their privacy and security HIGHLY and you can actually endanger people by "Doxing" (exposing their identify or other personally identifiable information) them and I am against that.  This information can be used to attack them, their systems, their family, friends and their finances.

Governments for one are very fond of gathering information on people for "good reason" as well.  Trust them, it's all for our own good!!

I have experienced this first hand on multiple levels which is why I am immediately suspicious of ANYONE who trys to identify other people online and I keep my eyes on those people. 

If you are on any forum that I participate in, I am keeping track of EVERYONE who asks people for Personally Identifiable Information (PII). You are on MY LIST.    "Give us your name, address, what kind of system, how much BTSX do you have etc..."  Sure I will, NOT!!  I AM WATCHING YOU (two fingers from my eyes to YOU).    Watch the Watchers!

It is no joke to me. This is also why I (legally) carry. 

Nevertheless, I have offered to identify myself to BM & Stan anytime since they are not far from me.

Your childish response adds nothing of value to the conversation, and I'm offended that you would imply that I don't value privacy. Of course there is no doxxing and the ID part is voluntary - nobody implied otherwise. This is exactly why I am not a delegate and probably will not be one anytime soon. I am not willing to expose my identity, but I will only vote for delegates whose realword identity I know. No contradiction there. I think of being a delegate as a business decision. It has risks and it has potential rewards. If you are not willing to accept those risks you will forego the reward.

The beauty of DPOS is that we only need about 100 people who are willing to accept those risks. Many of them are already publicly involved in crypto (e.g., Dan, Adam Levine, maybe Andreas A in the future, etc). Delegates in DPOS will converge on public and widely trusted personalities such as these. For you to imply that I am doxxing people or urging them to reveal their identity shows that you either completely misunderstood my point or you misunderstand the incentives and risks involved in DPOS. I am a shareholder and I need to protect my investment by voting for delegates I can trust, not some pseudonymous account on a website with nothing to lose. Get it?

[GaltReport]

Exposing your realword identity is the single biggest deterrent to doing anything malicious. If you support this flawed assumption that it is "impossible" to do anything malicious then I guess you can worry more about 99.9% uptime vs. 99.85% uptime. But if security is your objective then there is nothing more important than realworld identity. As a delegate, if your pseudonym or online reputation is worth less to you than the potential bounty of an attack then we have no recourse against you. If we know your real identity then you will also think about jail time or worse (a much stronger deterrent).

Edit: unnecessary quotes

I understand your reasoning here but this should be strictly voluntary.  Some people (like myself) value their privacy and security HIGHLY and you can actually endanger people by "Doxing" (exposing their identify or other personally identifiable information) them and I am against that.  This information can be used to attack them, their systems, their family, friends and their finances.

Governments for one are very fond of gathering information on people for "good reason" as well.  Trust them, it's all for our own good!!

I have experienced this first hand on multiple levels which is why I am immediately suspicious of ANYONE who trys to identify other people online and I keep my eyes on those people. 

If you are on any forum that I participate in, I am keeping track of EVERYONE who asks people for Personally Identifiable Information (PII). You are on MY LIST.    "Give us your name, address, what kind of system, how much BTSX do you have etc..."  Sure I will, NOT!!  I AM WATCHING YOU (two fingers from my eyes to YOU).    Watch the Watchers!

It is no joke to me. This is also why I (legally) carry. 

Nevertheless, I have offered to identify myself to BM & Stan anytime since they are not far from me.

[puppies]

Whatever your criteria is - what matters is the criteria of (big) shareholders (: .

True, but not many of them seem to be voting yet.