B&C signer voting watch

[mhps]

It took 253 blocks for phoenix to get max support 39% in rolling 100 block statistics, with 13k bks support.

for several k blocks a stable 8.5k bks voted for sabreiib, and reached 29%. then more support came in, pushing to 42%.

[Sabreiib]

If phoenix has 13K, mine +@dhume’s is more than his.

[mhps]

it’s more complicated then only the number of bks one owns. one can vote for themselves 3 times per block and can down vote others (using the 3 votes). So if A votes for A B C and C votes for C C and -A, even they have the same number of shares, the result is 0A 1B 3C.

[Sabreiib]

for themselves 3 times

1 vote per block or 3 votes per block is the same result. Only difference is blockchain size.

[mhps]

1 vote per block or 3 votes per block is the same result. Only difference is blockchain size.

better catch up discussions in this thread in the last few days. 3 votes are counted independently

No they count as 3 votes. Each block can cast 3 votes. 0 is forbidden here: https://bitbucket.org/JordanLeePeershares/bcexchange/src/e722d3365f673ad54afc7b25e74a2a8cc137376e/src/vote.cpp?at=master&fileviewer=file-view-default#vote.cpp-565

[Sabreiib]

Eg. If 3 vote per block, I cast 3000 vote during some time, 1000 for myself, 1000 for backpacker, 1000 for cybnate.

If only one vote per block, during the same time, cast 1000 votes totally, 333 for myself, 333 for backpacker, 333 for cybnate.

The reputed ratio is same. “3votes per block” makes statistical data more smooth, and ocupies more blockchain size, that’s all.

How to elect our reputed signers?

The client that requests the deposit address will need 255 public keys published from the top 255 signers. If there's not enough distinct signers who published LTC keys he won't be able to make that request. If he's able to make that request the signers will have to generate the multisig address and will probably fail because LTC probably doesn't support multisig with 255 signers. So the user will never get a deposit address for his request. So shareholders should be careful when they choose…

[mhps]

Eg. If 3 vote per block, I cast 3000 vote during some time, 1000 for myself, 1000 for backpacker, 1000 for cybnate.

If only one vote per block, during the same time, cast 1000 votes totally, 333 for myself, 333 for backpacker, 333 for cybnate.

The reputed ratio is same. “3votes per block” makes statistical data more smooth, and ocupies more blockchain size, that’s all.

You are right. But the important point is that when you can cast 3, you can also cast 3000 for yourself in the first example. If most people don’t realize that they can cast multiple times for the same person in one block and cast for themselves only once, you have a 3:1 advantage to them.

So game theory would suggest that the potential signers always cast 3 votes all for themselves, or they could be at disadvantage against those who do so. This is a terrible outcome for decentralization because voting degenerates into simply comparing who has the most shares.

[Sabreiib]

If most people don’t realize that they can cast multiple times for the same person in one block and cast for themselves only once, you have a 3:1 advantage to them.

Where is the 3:1 advantage coming from?

If you only vote for youself(only your one address on reputeation list), then you cast 3 votes for youself every block automatically.

[mhps]

If you only vote for youself(only your one address on reputeation list), then you cast 3 votes for youself every block automatically.

If others don’t do this and vote for themselves once and other people, then every block you find gives you 3 votes and every block they find gives them one vote. if you have the same number of shares you get 3 times vote.

[Sabreiib]

If they don’t vote for themselves, only vote for others, they will get zero vote. So it’s fair.

And any person with IQ>80 can understand that when they vote for others, themselves get less.

I am voting for 3 persons now, and will quit signers team if more applicants come. Being a signer is not an easy&comfortable duty.

[GreatScott]

Looks like Phoenix has an unhealthy amount of control over the BC network as well, and has voted himself the most positive reputation as the top signer on the network. I believe BCExchange will fail at convincing the public it even qualifies as a “Decentralized Exchange” due to this. What a waste of a couple great ideas.

[Sabreiib]

So I and @Dhume should try to help each other to become top signers?

[dysconnect]

Drastic measures like hard forking the network and banning BKS that voted for JL.

Some people who aren’t JL but voted for him, well, they should come forward to get their BKS back. Or not - because the new chain is not really bound to the terms of the old chain. The goal is to minimize the influence of JL.

The recent ETH/ETC fiasco makes me less hesitant to consider forking. Given the massive Bitfinex hack it would have been a golden chance to launch BCE.

The community and all development should then move to the new chain.

[Sentinelrv]

I swear Phoenix is like the virus form of Agent Smith from The Matrix and is infecting our network. The fact that he has attained the top signer position is startling. I would never deposit money and trade with B&C Exchange as long as he is one of the top 3 signers. No one will take B&C seriously. We have only one choice here. We need to remove him completely as an influence in the B&C network before we can have a chance of gaining any kind of credibility.

Forking is mentioned above. What about what @masterOfDisaster suggested before when we were having our upgrade problems? If we still own a majority of BlockShares in comparison to what Phoenix holds, we could all vote to print a lot more BlockShares and then distribute them to all the shareholders who didn’t vote for Phoenix, effectively reducing his control over our network to a minimum.

[backpacker]

i really like the idea of diluting the shares to eliminate phoenix, unfortunately it cannot be done on NSR, effectively that’s what he’s doing there at the moment.

[Sentinelrv]

Nu is lost to us. Maybe there is a chance to save B&C by diluting his shares and those who support him before he has a chance to attain complete control over the network. If he remains as a top signer, you can guarantee there will be some kind of accident like fund loss in the future which causes a crisis situation like we are experiencing right now with Nu where he can take advantage of it and take complete control. We need to preempt him if it’s not too late.

[Sentinelrv]

Also, I wanted to apologize for being busy lately. I just now finally got to setting up my reputation voting. You now have 1,930 more BlockShares voting for the top 3 signers, excluding Phoenix.

I added in the 3 addresses, but I need to know if I’m supposed to add in weights. Right now they all say zero. If I were to use them, what would I need to enter and how do they work? I understand above that I only get 3 votes per block and if I were to vote for only 1 signer all 3 votes would go to that one person, however I’m not too clear on how weighting works and what numbers I would need to input.

[sigmike]

Right now they all say zero.

Zero means they will never be selected when you find a block, so it’s not what you want. You should set all the weights to the same positive value if you want to vote equally for all of them on average (for example 1 or 10).

If you set different weights then when you find a block the signer will be selected randomly in proportion to their weight. For example if you set signer A a weight of 3, and signers B and C a weight of 1, then there are 3 times more chances that signer A will be selected for each of your allowed votes. That means on average you’ll vote 60% for A (3/5), 20% for B (1/5) and 20% for C (1/5).

Is zero the default value? If so we should change that to 1.

[Sabreiib]

We can have 15 reputed signers, will JL have 14 famous forum ID?

[cryptog]

A rogue signer even if it is the top signer should not compromise the security of the network so i do not understand your fear here.