Author Topic: [SLATE] ***delegate.xeroc***  (Read 13148 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12922
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
I gave all of you a chance to upgrade in time .. now I  published a new slate
that contains all delegates that have a version 0.9.3(c) (including those that
are currently not in the top 101.

Code: [Select]
- delegate.xeroc
 - bm.payroll.riverhead
 - jcalfee1-developer-team.helper.liondani
 - riverhead-del-server-1
 - delegate.xeldal
 - minebitshares-reloaded
 - fuzzy.beyondbitcoin
 - delegate.liondani
 - minebts1.bunkermining-com
 - mr.agsexplorer
 - mrs.agsexplorer
 - stan.delegate.xeldal
 - boombastic
 - delegate.btsnow
 - delegate.verbaltech
 - dpos.crazybit
 - backbone.riverhead
 - delegate-clayop
 - dele-puppy
 - delegate.kencode
 - spartako
 - delegate.follow-my-vote
 - calabiyau
 - dev-pc.bitcube
 - maqifrnswa
 - crazybit
 - delegate.charity
 - kokojie
 - www.minebitshares-com
 - fox
 - wackou-delegate
 - titan.crazybit
 - www2.minebitshares-com
 - a.delegate.charity
 - ak
 - delegate1.maqifrnswa
 - payroll.delegate.xeroc
 - anchor.crazybit
 - delegate-dev2.btsnow
 - delegate-dev1.btsnow
 - delegate.nathanhourt.com
 - delegate2.xeldal
 - btstools.digitalgaia
 - sollywood.sollars-com
 - fund.bitsharesbreakout
 - argentina-marketing.matt608
 - delegate-dev3.btsnow
 - spartako1
 - marketing.methodx
 - delegate-dev4.btsnow
 - very.strong
 - spartako2
 - lead.giant
 - tradebts.gulu
 - minebts4.bunkermining-com
 - minebts3.bunkermining-com
 - delegated-proof-of-steak
 - minebts6.bunkermining-com
 - minebts2.bunkermining-com
 - delegate.rgcrypto
 - dacx.baozou
 - minebts5.bunkermining-com
 - dev.nathanhourt.com
 - delegate.dposhub-org
 - delegate.ihashfury
 - bitcube
 - triox-delegate
 - martin-38ptswarrior-raum
 - delegate3.xeldal
Broadcasting slate
Transactions ID: b7bc6bd6dc8601f7b565fc00fa91679caeab4c9c

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12922
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc

iHashFury

  • Guest

Offline emski

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1282
    • View Profile
    • http://lnkd.in/nPbhxG
I removed all 3% delegates with no price feeds from my slate.

Well done!

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12922
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
I removed all 3% delegates with no price feeds from my slate. These are:

* delegate.nathanhourt.com
* bitcoiners
* cny.bts500
* dac.bts500
* eur.bts500
* delegate.follow-my-vote
* delegate.webber
* dpos.crazybit

Offline cass

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4311
  • /(┬.┬)\
    • View Profile
added bitspace-clains

Transactions ID: 5a83079ef829ccd1748f2c76f1780a7fbb052c54

 +5%
█║▌║║█  - - -  The quieter you become, the more you are able to hear  - - -  █║▌║║█

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12922
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
added bitspace-clains

Transactions ID: 5a83079ef829ccd1748f2c76f1780a7fbb052c54

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12922
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
Removed john galt's delegate

Code: [Select]
Transactions ID: 5eeda164846bfb72a71f762dfebd6a7ae4a923a4

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12922
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
adding
 - chronos.payroll.lafona

removed
 - holytransaction (not seeing any progress after 6 months)

Code: [Select]
Transactions ID: 67e4d65ac6d6fc6b04810d5aafea0d1e310e6b06

Tuck Fheman

  • Guest
Thanks for the responses!

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12922
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
xeroc sorry, when i started this post it seemed to be on topic, but now i'm not sure and i'm probably derailing your thread, but it looked like a good place to ask. just ask and i'll nuke this or move it to a more appropriate thread, if i can find one.

how many actual delegates are there now?

lately it seems a lot of people are running multiple delegates, some 5 or more (see above).

so we don't actually have 101 delegates, we have more like 20-40 that are running multiple delegates themselves?
You are absolutely right here ..
Adding bunkermining to my slate is for short-term development and media buzz and I wouldn't have added them if i didn't trust DataSecurityNode.
I also mentioned somewhere that having a startup be financed with BitShares dilution and requiring multiple delegates is a "flaw" in the system that will, however, be solved with the upcoming version of BitShares and the so called "workers" ... in essence, there will be block signers (101 individual) being payed with transaction fees and businesses/workers that are being payed by dilution ..

Again, adding bunkermining is a short-term solution to gain some more traction until the worker system (which is already implemented AFAIK) is out in the next BitShares version.

Quote
once they get "trustworthy" enough, they can increase their delegates, get voted in until we're down to 10 individuals/groups making up the 101 delegates?

is this happening because of voter apathy?

is this a real concern or am i reading something into this (due to bitcoin's centralized mining pools)?
I do understand your concerns .. and I thank you for asking theses questions. It there wasn't the "worker" proposal and an soonish(tm) release of BitShares that chances to a more flexible system, I wouldn't dare adding that set of delegates ... But I also do see the need for it to gain traction short-term.

Offline BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode

This is largely due to how DPOS 1.0 works and has been rather forced by the current market cap. I don't know how closely you been following BMs recent posts and hangouts, but in DPOS 2.0, the idea of one 'entity' having multiple delegates like this is going to go away in favor of 'worker/project' funding where the amount needed can be met by a single proposal, vs. the current delegate system that cannot meet the need largely due to the current market cap. The delegate landscape will be broken out into 3 entities that will better respond to the needs of the ecosystem.

The work and risk that goes into becoming a delegate, especially again at this market cap, just isn't worth it for most. I dont know how this is a result of voter apathy.. people are voting for the delegates they want to support.. and yes even multiple placements where needed and warranted for the project. Again though,all of this will change soon.. so the issues surrounding what we see today in regards to a single player controlling multiple spaces is moot.. keep in mind you are asking xeroc.. and I am answering.. both of us has multiple delegate spots right now :) ... and yes I am in the process of moving for more for a project that has proven to be the most effective new user driver for bitshares.. without it we can't grow it out at current market cap levels.

That's just my feedback anyways.. xeroc might have another take.

I appreciate the detailed response!  I do remember hearing something about the proposed new delegate system now that you bring it up, I had forgotten about it, so thanks. I was listening for an answer to a particular question on that session and everything else was background noise. I fully understand people needing multiple delegates to get by right now and have nothing against those with multiple delegates (they got their by a vote after all). The idea of multiple delegates just suddenly struck me as troublesome, since I was listening to Dr. Robert Murphy's talk and bitcoin's centralized mining came up.

Bitcoin can't vote on who mines... so thats what happens.. far from the case here I think.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
www.Peerplays.com | Decentralized Gaming Built with Graphene - Now with BookiePro and Sweeps!
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Tuck Fheman

  • Guest
This is largely due to how DPOS 1.0 works and has been rather forced by the current market cap. I don't know how closely you been following BMs recent posts and hangouts, but in DPOS 2.0, the idea of one 'entity' having multiple delegates like this is going to go away in favor of 'worker/project' funding where the amount needed can be met by a single proposal, vs. the current delegate system that cannot meet the need largely due to the current market cap. The delegate landscape will be broken out into 3 entities that will better respond to the needs of the ecosystem.

The work and risk that goes into becoming a delegate, especially again at this market cap, just isn't worth it for most. I dont know how this is a result of voter apathy.. people are voting for the delegates they want to support.. and yes even multiple placements where needed and warranted for the project. Again though,all of this will change soon.. so the issues surrounding what we see today in regards to a single player controlling multiple spaces is moot.. keep in mind you are asking xeroc.. and I am answering.. both of us has multiple delegate spots right now :) ... and yes I am in the process of moving for more for a project that has proven to be the most effective new user driver for bitshares.. without it we can't grow it out at current market cap levels.

That's just my feedback anyways.. xeroc might have another take.

I appreciate the detailed response!  I do remember hearing something about the proposed new delegate system now that you bring it up, I had forgotten about it, so thanks. I was listening for an answer to a particular question on that session and everything else was background noise. I fully understand people needing multiple delegates to get by right now and have nothing against those with multiple delegates (they got there by a vote after all). The idea of multiple delegates just suddenly struck me as troublesome, since I was listening to Dr. Robert Murphy's talk and bitcoin's centralized mining came up.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2015, 08:28:04 am by Tuck Fheman »

Offline BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode

xeroc sorry, when i started this post it seemed to be on topic, but now i'm not sure and i'm probably derailing your thread, but it looked like a good place to ask. just ask and i'll nuke this or move it to a more appropriate thread, if i can find one.

how many actual delegates are there now?

lately it seems a lot of people are running multiple delegates, some 5 or more (see above).

so we don't actually have 101 delegates, we have more like 20-40 that are running multiple delegates themselves?

once they get "trustworthy" enough, they can increase their delegates, get voted in until we're down to 10 individuals/groups making up the 101 delegates?

is this happening because of voter apathy?

is this a real concern or am i reading something into this (due to bitcoin's centralized mining pools)?

This is largely due to how DPOS 1.0 works and has been rather forced by the current market cap. I don't know how closely you been following BMs recent posts and hangouts, but in DPOS 2.0, the idea of one 'entity' having multiple delegates like this is going to go away in favor of 'worker/project' funding where the amount needed can be met by a single proposal, vs. the current delegate system that cannot meet the need largely due to the current market cap. The delegate landscape will be broken out into 3 entities that will better respond to the needs of the ecosystem.

The work and risk that goes into becoming a delegate, especially again at this market cap, just isn't worth it for most. I dont know how this is a result of voter apathy.. people are voting for the delegates they want to support.. and yes even multiple placements where needed and warranted for the project. Again though,all of this will change soon.. so the issues surrounding what we see today in regards to a single player controlling multiple spaces is moot.. keep in mind you are asking xeroc.. and I am answering.. both of us has multiple delegate spots right now :) ... and yes I am in the process of moving for more for a project that has proven to be the most effective new user driver for bitshares.. without it we can't grow it out at current market cap levels.

That's just my feedback anyways.. xeroc might have another take.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
www.Peerplays.com | Decentralized Gaming Built with Graphene - Now with BookiePro and Sweeps!
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Tuck Fheman

  • Guest
xeroc sorry, when i started this post it seemed to be on topic, but now i'm not sure and i'm probably derailing your thread, but it looked like a good place to ask. just ask and i'll nuke this or move it to a more appropriate thread, if i can find one.

how many actual delegates are there now?

lately it seems a lot of people are running multiple delegates, some 5 or more (see above).

so we don't actually have 101 delegates, we have more like 20-40 that are running multiple delegates themselves?

once they get "trustworthy" enough, they can increase their delegates, get voted in until we're down to 10 individuals/groups making up the 101 delegates?

is this happening because of voter apathy?

is this a real concern or am i reading something into this (due to bitcoin's centralized mining pools)?