[B&C] Paying reputed signers

Pay for everything with BKS? Yah, I guess you’re right, the developers don’t want BKS or BKC, they want BTC or NBT. Though you’re also right that we don’t want to have a standing reserve at all times, just when we have a specific project in mind.

Alright, I concede that either a BKC/NBT peg is not economically viable or that we have not experienced regular B&C operation enough to hypothesize a situation in which it would be viable. At the very least this discussion has helped me understand the economy of B&C a lot better.

1 Like

I still feel like I don’t understand anything at all.
…but I have a mingle-mangle of opinions in my head :slight_smile:

What is said in B&C white paper? Do we need to pay signers with BKS? If so, that’s really bad, as bad as bitshare.

I think signers should be paid with BTC which comes from BKC sale proceed, if there is NO BKC sale, no money to pay them since they confirm NONE transactions!

If B&C business goes smooth, being a reputed signer is a good profit earning, and no every candidate can be elected to signers, so there will be a competition: donate money and get voted with more probability.

There is a reputed signer reward in each block, I think it is given in BKS. I would not vote for you to receive the reward if you’re trying to buy my vote. There aren’t really ‘delegates’ as such, anyone can be a signer. It’s more a matter of building reputation.

It would be nice to give the reward in BKC, because it would be a convenient way to distribute BKC in addition to the BKC custodians.
And for BKC there might be more market depth than for BKS - but who knows how desperate people will try to buy BKS of BCE is successful.
Just look at what happened to the initial sale after its end had been announced… :wink:

I’m comfortable paying reputed members with BKS.

Who do we pay with what?

  • BKS: pay to people who are going to stick around for a while and probably want to vote
  • BKC: pay only to traders. We want to get these into the hands of people who will use them as quickly as possible
  • NBT/BTC: pay to people who are expected to cash, such that they don’t ever have to dump

It seems clear to me that reputed signers are in the BKS category.


That’s right. The drawback of this is that people who already have (voting) power get even more power. Still I think it might be better to pay them with BKS because their incentive to support BCE long-term is high as long as BCE runs well; it provides them with (easily earned?) money.

I wonder how good the guide for setting up a reputed signer environment will be. I imagine it will attract both people from Nu/BCE as well as people from outside.
Providing them with a good guide removes a technical entry barrier and increases the amount of people who might consider competing for positions - which is good.
Setting up a reputed signer system on a linux machine via command line including TOR is hard for the average user to say the least.
In the end it should be able to boil it down to “a human interface” that manages the private keys. I very much hope that the rest is automated as much as possible.

1 Like

1)BKS/BKC/BTC are all money, signers can only get paid after they’ve done corresponding amount of work. Very bad to pay someone who does little work or does badly in work.

  1. Pay signers with BKS is very bad idea because whatever you pay them would be sold to market by them for FIAT, that will depress the BKS price. When they get paid with BKC, that’s much better because BKC price is always 1$ on sale.

I haven’t found the exact words of what is the signers salary. BKC or BKS or NBT?

Reputed signer incentives

1 Like

It’s contained in the block, so I’m 99% sure it’s BKS.

We aren’t paying people who do work or don’t do work, we’re paying whoever gets the most votes. That signer is most likely the one doing their job the best.

Why do you think reputed signers would sell their BKS? Out of everyone I can think of, a reputed signer has the best chance to hold the BKS. They are reputed, so they’ve been with B&C for a long time and have shown that they have BKS holders interests at heart. They are the ideal BKS holder and the least likely to sell out of all provable categories of people.

Aside from protocol challenges, if we pay them in NBT and they buy BKS with it, we are handing money over to traders. If >50% of rewarded signers would rather be paid in BKS than NBT then we should pay them in BKS.


Use case: Minter and shareholder section has a ton of typos derived from copy and pasting this from the NSR white paper.

1 Like

BKS’s dividend address is bitcoin? I think BKS/BKC/BTC all can be handled by B&C blockchain just like Nu blockchain deals with NBT/NSR and PPC.

For signer reward:

  1. BTC is the best/convenient choice since all B&C exchange revenue is BTC from BKC sale. This revenue can be split into share dividend, signer reward and software development/marketing.

  2. BKC is also a good choice.

  3. BKS is the worst choice, reason is simple: centralization. Signer get more and more BKS and BKS distribution is worse, and there will be some holders selling a portion of BKS reward and depress BKS price. DON’T FORGET NEARLY ALL B&C INVESTORS ARE COMING FOR MORE FIAT.

In the end, a tragedy of bitshares comes up again, look at the bitshare additional issue, do you like BKS to become another BTS?

The reason I invest B&C is that when B&C business revenue is Zero. all expenditure can be zero including signers rewards, B&C has no liability to feed a bunch of signers who contribute none to company’s profit. Keeping a computer for 24X7 hours on line is quite cheap, they can hold for years when revenue is low.

B&C’s revenue should be always greater than its expenditure.

BKC is the absolute worst. Are we expecting the signers to be making so many transactions that they can burn them up? Otherwise, where are they going to sell them?

BTC is OK, except that distributing btc every minute via multisig in reference to a block chain vote would be very complicated and, in my opinion, costly. We’d have to pay the btc transaction fee 10x per block. Not to mention our whole exchange would collapse if btc got 51%ed.

BKS is the best because it improves distribution and most directly gives the signers the reward they want the most. If, say, 20% sell then we can buy those shares back with a quarter of the btc we saved by not paying signers in btc. Only if 50% sell will the share price be diluted by BKS rewards.

I fundamentally disagree that paying BKS to proven valuable community members via a shareholder vote is centralization.

1 Like

I don’t think so. They can trade BKC for whatever they want to. Once more it doesn’t matter whether they receive BKC (which they can trade for BTC, BKS, PPC, etc), BKS (which they can trade for…) or…
BKC can be sold for up to 1 USD or NBT, respectively.
While BKS might fluctuate. BKC can be expected to be close to 1 USD.
That provides the signers with a more reliable level of payment (in USD value; compared to BKS and BTC) as long as they do their job well and keep their reputation high.
If they’d be paid with BKS and wouldn’t want to keep them to get rid of fluctuating BKS prices, they had to trade them persistently to e.g. NBT.

BKC can be sold for close to 1 USD. Not always and not in times of oversupply, but in the long run BKC are expected to be close to 1 USD - that is one of the assumptions BCE’s business model is banked on. Except for BCE nobody can create BKC. So if BCE is used for trading, that assumption stays valid.
The only drawback is that speculating on rising BKC price level is barely possible - they won’t ever be above 1 USD.

Nope :smile:
The BTC that would be distributed needed to be held available by BCE. BCE would receive BTC for selling BKC (or trade received NBT, PPC, etc. to BTC), because BTC are meant to be distributed to BKS holders.
If they don’t get distributed on a regular basis, but kept to pay the signers, BCE relies on Bitcoin to pay for one of the most important ongoing functions: signing transactions.
I wouldn’t chose that dependency if I had other options.

I think that BTC would be the worst payment option for paying signers - especially considering this:

So no, BTC is not ok, it’s horrible.

Maybe not the best, but still better than BTC. I prefer BKC like I explained above.

While I basically see some danger, I tend to agree with you.
Especially when looking at the amount of BKS that will be distributed to them this way.
And the reputed signers are not necessarily the same people all the time.
The ones with the best reputation will earn the money.

ninjaedit: 3 different people, 3 completely different opinions, lol.

1 Like

What’s more, voters can stop voting for someone if they think that person is being rewarded all the time.

You’re right that btc (or any other non-B&C crypto) is the worst for like 100 reasons.

I see your point that BKC is ~$1, but it still tastes bad in my mouth to use them to pay off debt. Maybe I’ll come up with some better arguments after I think about it some. We should start a new thread anyway, this one’s used and abused at this point.

We could ask a moderator to split the posts after BKC/NBT Peg (looks like I started with derailing the thread :frowning: ) to a new thread titled “paying reputed signers” or anything else.
@coingame, would you do that?

There might already be a draft for the implementation of the reputed signer reward, but I think a discussion might help to better understand or even improve the design.

Trying to look unbiased and non-technical at it, BTC might be a good choice. But as I expect the first reputed signers to be from the Nu/BCE ecosystem, they might see that differently and might prefer BKC and BKS over BTC.
From a BCE point of view BKS and BKC are better as well, because a reputed signer reward paid in BKS or BKC allows payment with units that are under complete control of BCE; no dependencies to external development/issues/problems.

Using BKC to pay signers would allow continuous distribution of BKC. For BCE it’s no economical difference between paying signers with BKC, BKS or BTC.
Paying with BKC is just very convenient, provides a constant flow of BKC to the market.

But looking at the design, end of page 13 in chapter “Pairing of BlockCredit and BlockShare addresses” it looks like the reputed signer reward is designed to be paid in BKS:

There is a need for reputed addresses to be BlockShare addresses so they can receive block rewards of shares.[/quote]

If they do a better job than those who receive no votes, it’s earned and fair to do it.

The whole reputation system will be… fascinating; lending Spock’s words.

Signers with KBS reward will definitely sell at least a portion of their rewards, and BKS price may depressed to 1$, good luck BKS holders. Bitshare is waiting for you.

Reputated signer don’t have to be from Nu or B&C community technically as the strongest requirement for them are, in the order of importance, 1) don’t take the money and run 2) maintain the signing bot 3) good enough network connections. After the initial period 2) and 3) will be easy to have – could be as simple as clicking a few buttons on a web interface in most situations. So the dominant factor is 1), which anyone who has a reputation stake could qualify – ones on bitcointalk, reddit, public figure of many kind.
Paying signers of a wide variety of origin with NSR, BKS, BKC would not be as appropriate as NBT and BTC.

We use BTC as a means of paying out dividends to shareholders, I don’t understand why we wouldn’t use a percentage of that to pay our reputated signers. Wouldn’t it be logical to pay them for their service in the same way we pay our shareholders? BTC makes sense because we already use it to pay dividends. On top of that BTC still is and will probably remain for a very long time the most liquid crypto with the most widely accepted uses. Aka BTC is a very practical coin to have and I can’t imagine reputed signers not being happy with being paid out in BTC.

Also I’m very much against diluting BKS shares by printing new ones to use as a payment for reputed signers, unless there is an acute emergency which requires funds quickly we shouldnt print new BKS. Like @Sabreiib I’m against diluting shares for various reasons which have been stated before in different topics. Paying reputed signers in BKC also seems illogical. Paying them in BKC would mean they would be dependent on buy side support on the market to convert their BKC (which they won’t have any use for unless they are huge traders themselves) to a commodity like BTC which they can convert to cash or use a means of payment for whatever.


assume we pay dividend and signer rewards monthly.

2016 July: 10000$ revenue
2016 Aug: 0 $
2016 Sep: 5000$

So how do we pay the signers? Still pay them in August while the company owners(shareholders) get none?

As long as the BKC are sold in small chunks, there’s ongoing revenue as long as the blockchain is used by customers, because according to the design document:

But more importantly:
if the signers are paid in BKS (like the design document suggests - or like I read it) or in BKC there’s no problem to pay the signers as the BKC and BKS can be created by protocol when creating the block.

That’s another advantage (aside from the technical advantages) over using BTC, NBT or anything not native to BCE: no need to keep funds to pay the reputed signers; the payment can be created on the way.

A reputed signer must have BKS address, and how we dispatch dividend is just how we pay them reward.

Regard signers as special shareholder, this is the most simple and comvennient way.