B&C signer voting watch

Sabreiib 2016-08-03 14:06:19 UTC #42

The default voting setting is 0.01BKS, so I guess many voters didn’t notice it at all.

BTW, the most evil people in this network are those shareholders without voting/minting activity, they account for 2/3 of whole BKS, and it is the reason why Jordan elected as top signer. Only 1/3 shareholders are active minting. The majority may not be justice or correct, I dislike them. I would rather hate them and let them down vote me as long as they begin to mint/vote.

And my motion of building RSOT not widely supported, so I guess most shareholders(with 2/3 of all BKS) are just apathetic of one/two person controls the dev fund. See, this is the evil majority.

My aim is to build a team replacing Jordan/Angela 's management.

GreatScott 2016-08-03 14:12:50 UTC #43

I have not added anything to the reward text box, and it is blank. I think it is foolish to assume anything other than Phoenix is voting himself more control of the network. This is why B&C will be a small and centralized exchange. That is not what interested me at all in this project.

Sabreiib 2016-08-03 14:17:51 UTC #44

Fully decentralization is impossible for high efficiency, Open transaction plans to build some voting pool with each pool having a dozen of nodes. BTC/LTC only support 15 multi signature, not possible for 100 multisig till now.

The block chain tech is not suitable for micropayment system at all, the quarrel of 1M vs 2M in BTC community tells us everything, when you want efficiency(lightning network), you sacrify the decentralization.

We can not have it both ways, I am afraid this is a philosophy problem, not a technical one.

GreatScott 2016-08-03 14:27:28 UTC #45

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” - Ben Franklin

I feel this quote is relevant. ~~Immutability is our Liberty. Decentralization is our Safety.~~ I can’t come up with an analogy that makes sense, but perhaps you get the point that Decentralization is what makes it a DAO. Prospective B&C Exchange customers will want both. If B&C doesn’t offer it, they will continue to trade on more efficient yet centralized exchanges. The technology is there to have it both ways and if B&C doesn’t provide it, someone else will.

Sabreiib 2016-08-03 15:09:12 UTC #46

I did ask @sigmike about the feasibility of multiple rooms with each room having 15 reputed signers, but he didn’t reply me, I guess it’s technical feasible but not a priority in this situation so sigmike ignored it.

Even in future, we accomplish 100 rooms with 1500 reputed signer, each customer will also have to trust 15 strangers in each room on each transaction, so I don’t know the technology of have it both ways----both efficiency and decentralization. Bitfinex will never be the last scandal of traditional exnchage, B&C will have some customers, if not many, but that’s OK, even myself can afford the cost of running 8 nodes 7x24. so the operation cost of B&C is very low, as long as it survives this crisis.

The traditional payment network such as VISA/MASTER/Alipay has the capacity of 100,000 tx/s, for an revolutionary technology to replace them, you need one million tx/s process ability, as far as BTC’s 3-7tx/s concerned, BTC has to raise block size to 20GB per block, it’s totally unacceptable.

Blockchain is NOT almighty, I am looking forward to lightning network to check if they build some centralized nodes to speed up the payment process.

dysconnect 2016-08-03 18:53:28 UTC #47

I count more than 15 people that aren’t JL and haven’t completely left yet. It’s possible to block off new sybils but will require a lot more commitment from the current community members.

Sentinelrv 2016-08-03 21:39:39 UTC #48

I believe it should be as Sunny has said all along. The blockchain itself should remain as decentralized as possible and focused mainly on the role of providing secure decentralized storage of value. That is what Sunny designed Peercoin as with his backbone currency idea. Meanwhile, centralized or less decentralized off-chain networks such as OT, Lightning or others in the future will need to be used for high capacity transaction processing.

The blockchain should not be altered to provide greater transaction processing ability, as it will have the effect of sacrificing decentralization. There should be multiple networks that work in conjunction, blockchain networks that focus on secure decentralized storage and off-chain networks that focus on quantity and speed of transactions. If somebody doesn’t need to transact with their coins often, then they would simply use the blockchain to securely store their wealth and won’t have the need to use off-chain networks. If somebody does need to transact often though, then they will need to accept less decentralization in order to do so.

Sentinelrv 2016-08-03 22:40:45 UTC #49

Note: I am pulling this from memory, so it might be good to confirm this is officially how it works before trusting what I say here. I believe the weight field was blank at first right after I input an address. When you said later that zero weights will prevent me from voting for anybody, I went back to change them and all 3 addresses were now displaying a weight of zero instead of being blank. I changed them all to 1 though.

@sigmike, can you please confirm whether leaving the reputation reward field blank defaults to 0.01 BKS? If so, shareholders will need to enter in a reduced reward if they feel 0.01 BKS is too high of a reward for now (since no signing is necessary yet).

What about the number of signers eligible to receive a reward? What happens if there is nothing entered into that field? Is there a default number or no?

Also, @Sabreiib mentioned above having a large number of signers in the future, around 1,500. How is it possible to achieve that if I can only vote a maximum of 3 people per block?

Maybe I was exaggerating the threat of Phoenix a little bit. If he only has 3 votes per block, he will need to spend them all on voting for himself in order to keep him as the top signer. If he were to vote for another pseudonym, he would need to split his voting in half, meaning he would fall from being the top signer. Maybe it’s possible for him to infect a 2 of 3 signing group, but probably not larger than that.

cryptog 2016-08-03 23:30:12 UTC #50

Any reasons why we are not seeing some assets being decided by consensus in the assets thumbnail of the client?

Sentinelrv 2016-08-04 00:01:14 UTC #51

What do we need at this point with trading functions not complete? We need to be able to hold the NuBits that Angela currently holds. Is that it for now?

Sabreiib 2016-08-04 00:22:41 UTC #52

8000 shareholders can elect 1500 reputed signers easily with 3 vote per block.

I agree that Blockchain is only suitable for settlement network, in fact the PoS of B&C is the layer of blockchain based settlement and the escrow function of signers can be the layer of micropayment.

B&C should become a private currency issuer, plus payment processor, plus a crypto foreign exchange, a complete solution for our cutomers, otherwise our shareholders are short sighted, narrow vision.

Cybnate 2016-08-04 09:18:20 UTC #53

Two or more large shareholders decided to increase the eligible signers to 4. Therefore my advertised signer address is now included. I’m now receiving for every block I mint 0.01 BKS for the minting + 0.01 BKS for the reputations = 0.02 BKS.

Not sure why it has been increased to 0.01 BKS, I thought 0.001 BKS (as per my datafeed) was more appropriate given that we are not trading. Like to hear the reasoning for increasing this as there might be an expectation I’m not aware off yet.

Sabreiib 2016-08-04 09:51:02 UTC #54

I vote for eligible 15 reputed signers, and don’t know why “4” is chosen.

Cybnate 2016-08-04 10:15:07 UTC #55

And what about the reward of 0.01 BKS? Any reasoning for that? Or is there another shareholder ‘playing’?

Sabreiib 2016-08-04 10:27:00 UTC #56

I don’t know how " rewards" and “eligible number” are elected, I even thought they are unelectable several days ago, so I set “0.01BKS ,15 reputed signers” without much care. Sigmike also didin’t mention them.

We may discuss the reward level on forum and I"ll adjust it. @sigmike can you tell us the mechanism of electing reward level & eligible signers?

Sometimes we need to relax, after all NSR has lost 90% cap, and I’v already been ready for losing all my investment on BKS, situation cannot be worse, is there anything left can scare us?

My RSOT motion may not be passed, the fact is 2/3 BKS never mint, and the majority of remaining 1/3 miners don’t care about the team management replacing Jordan/Angela. DAO has no future if anticipates are apathetic, B&C has no future without an efficient executive team.

There are less than 40 nodes in B&C network, how about electing 40 reputed signers and reward them at high rewards level? Dilute those sleeping losers. We are a live company not dead e-gold, no one should hoard shares and sleep. In future, the main share holders may not be initial investors because this company reward active contributors and punish lazy men!

Eligible signers: 40
Reward: 1.0 BKS

Can these drive those lazy men out of beds?

sigmike 2016-08-04 11:08:34 UTC #57

Sorry about that. It’s more because the question is still not very clear to me and I forgot to get back to it. Yes we can have some isolated groups of signers. There are many things to specify though (how the rewards and reputations would work, are they assigned to specific assets by vote, can multiple groups have the same assets, how we can design an understandable interface to vote, etc.).

We will have to change that. I created an issue: https://bitbucket.org/JordanLeePeershares/bcexchange/issues/43/when-no-reputation-weight-is-entered-the

No, for all the new votes leaving something blanks means voting for the currently effective value.

For example if the current reputation reward is 0.3 and you leave that blank in your vote, then it’s the same as voting for 0.3. If it changes to 0.1 then you vote for 0.1.

So it’s basically an abstention.

From the design paper:

Same as above.

Reputation is calculated from the 35,000 previous blocks (with decreasing weight, see https://bitbucket.org/JordanLeePeershares/bcexchange/issues/15/reputation-voting), so the absolute maximum number of signers if all blocks upvote 3 distinct signers is 105,000.

Did I answer all the questions or is there something else still unclear?

Sabreiib 2016-08-04 11:23:40 UTC #58

Thanks for reply, sigmike. Another question:

If 1000 BKS vote for 0.2 BKS reward and other 2000BKS vote for 0. 1BKS, the result is 0.13BKS?

Every voter has different setting for “eligible signers”&“reward”, so weighted average?

sigmike 2016-08-04 11:33:02 UTC #59

No it’s a median. So in your example it would be 0.1 BKS.

Sabreiib 2016-08-04 11:38:47 UTC #60

If a shareholder has 1% of BKS and vote for 1000BKS reward, he cannot disturb the process.

sigmike 2016-08-04 11:39:40 UTC #61

Actually I assumed you talked about blocks here in my answer (1000 and 2000 blocks, not BKS). The number of BKS has no effect on these votes (unlike votes that still use sharedays).