B&C signer voting watch

[Sabreiib]

my vote adjusted

eligible signer: 50
reward: 0.05

This is the way I express my hate to apathetic shareholders.

[Sentinelrv]

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!

my vote adjusted

eligible signer: 50reward: 0.05

This is the way I express my hate to apathetic shareholders.

This will also hurt active shareholders like myself who can’t become signers. How about instead we prioritize fixing @Eleven’s code for abstaining from voting, that way apathetic minters can no longer hurt us. It was pushed back because it didn’t seem high priority, but maybe that is not the case after all and we should fix it before releasing trading functions. That is a much better solution than also hurting shareholders who have been active and have done nothing wrong. For the record, I am currently voting for your RSOT motion.

[GreatScott]

This is the way I express my hate to apathetic shareholders.

reward: 0.05

You make me wish I had forgotten about my BKS now. 0.05 is way too high. It brings BKS inflation over 15%/year before there is even anything for signers to do. And what point is actually being made to people who have forgotten about B&C??

[Sentinelrv]

You make me wish I had forgotten about my BKS now. 0.05 is way too high. It brings BKS inflation over 15%/year before there is even anything for signers to do. And what point is actually being made to people who have forgotten about B&C??

He’s concerned about apathetic minters negatively affecting the outcome of voting. Read my reply above. Introducing voter abstention for apathetic voters is a much better way of reducing their influence than hurting both apathetic and non-apathetic shareholders through BKS dilution via a high signing reward. That would be very unfair to those of us who are active, but not signers. Fixing the abstention code and releasing it for v0.6 would solve this problem.

[GreatScott]

That would be very unfair to those of us who are active, but not signers.

Bingo. So now shareholders have to be a reputed signer or else they do not get the benefit of the huge increase in inflation and instead get their stake devalued. This has absolutely nothing to do with apathy. I imagine once the majority stakeholders inflate it enough, they will see no benefit in dividends and transition to share buybacks so BKS will become like NSR, lacking a good case for investment.

[Sentinelrv]

@sigmike, have you read my replies directly above? Would fixing Eleven’s code for voter abstention prevent apathetic minters from negatively influencing voting for motions/eligible signers/reward? You mentioned above that currently an abstention will cause your client to vote for the current reward and number of eligible signers. Would fixing Eleven’s code make it so these abstentions don’t influence voting at all? So for example, if they don’t configure motion votes or signer rewards, their apathy won’t affect the rest of us because their non-votes will no longer be included. If so and this would fix the problem, how much do you think it will cost and how long will it take to properly fix Eleven’s abstention code and release it?

[Sabreiib]

This is my idea, comments welcomed, especially from @sigmike and other developers.

Today, there are three unfair/weakness in B&C network.

1. Around 2/3 BKS not minting, and they enjoy the security of PoS network provided by the remaining 1/3, this issue also exists in any other PoS network such as PPC.

2. B&C signers get BKS paid without performing any trade activity, unfair.

3. B&C is semi-decentralized exchange because only 15 eligible signers supported due to the BTC/LTC multisignature limit.

My idea is to solve all these three problems.

1. As said by Sigmike, B&C actually support 32,000 eligible signers, so let’s vote for 32,000 signer! Everyone votes for himself, no cheat/scam chance at all because one cannot scam himself, everyone will never get betrayed.

The PoS minting is 1st fixed rewards( 0.01 BKS per block) ,and signers reward is the 2nd flexible reward such as 0.05BKS per block. Unlike hardcoded PoS reward, the signers reward fluctuate with real world.

How to elect our reputed signers?

Yes. Only 3 votes will be included in each block though. They will be chosen randomly according to the weight you provide. The weight itself is not put in the blockchain, it’s only used in the selection process. It’s described in the design paper and I copied it in the issue where some details were discussed: https://bitbucket.org/JordanLeePeershares/bcexchange/issues/15/reputation-voting You can choose any integer between 0 and 127. Zero means he’ll never be chosen. Anything else is a w…

This can dilute not minting shareholders heavily, and they are deserved to be punished, tragedy of commons is completely avoided.

2. Assume there are thousands of signers now, and we build many many ROOMs with each room having 15 reputed signers, so that B&C get much more decentralized.

As said by sigmike

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.).

The reward is not related to that. Signer reward distribution is only based on the reputation, and not linked to assets or the messages they send.

Since signers reward NOT linked to asset or the message they send, why not pay them directly when they send cryptos? e.g. when 15 repute signers in ROOM6 finish a transaction of 10 BTC buying 2000 LTC, they just keep 0.01BTC or 2 LTC. If there is less business in this room, they will earn less BTC/LTC. The healthy internal competition among different ROOMs in B&C network will lead to better ecosystem. Different ROOMS compete on cheaper transaction fee( 0.01 or 0.013BTC) and variou s assets(ETH vs ETC?).

[Sabreiib]

my vote adjusted

eligible signer: 10,000
reward: 0.03

@Sentinelrv, you certainly can be a signer if we vote for 10000 signers. You don’t have to prepare hardware and spend time on it, just mint and vote for yourself, it’s extra PoS “minting”/online rewards.

[Sabreiib]

BKS is share, not a coin, in real world, companies sometimes issue additional stocks(shares) to raise money or reward some contributors, so our goal is to Marginalize those lazy shareholders by diluting them.

Many persons have not many shares but very active on this forum by providing idea etc, @GreatScott, @ConfusedObserver,@backpacker, @creon etc, they should be reward quite some BKS for their work. How? Some shareholders may vote them, and they will receive signer rewards.

[Sabreiib]

He’s concerned about apathetic minters negatively affecting the outcome of voting. Read my reply above. Introducing voter abstention for apathetic voters is a much better way of reducing their influence than hurting both apathetic and non-apathetic shareholders through BKS dilution via a high signing reward. That would be very unfair to those of us who are active, but not signers. Fixing the abstention code and releasing it for v0.6 would solve this problem.

My idea is every shareholder can be a signer, even he does nothing about trade asset, he will get rewarded, because the signer reward is NOT linked to trade activity. So no one will get hurt, except for those shareholders who never mint.

As long as every shareholder mint, and vote for himself as a signer, network safety (PoS difficulty)greatly improved.

[Sabreiib]

I imagine once the majority stakeholders inflate it enough, they will see no benefit in dividends and transition to share buybacks so BKS will become like NSR, lacking a good case for investment.

If all shareholders mint, small or big shareholders, the minting reward is roughly proportional to their shares, isn’t it? Even if BKS inflation rate is 10000% per year, after 10 years mining, every one still has the same proportion of this company, right?

[GreatScott]

If all shareholders mint, small or big shareholders, the minting reward is roughly proportional to their shares, isn’t it?

Not at all. If your objective is to be fair to all shareholders who are minting, then propose a motion to raise the block reward instead of the reputed signer reward which only rewards the inner circle.

[Sentinelrv]

If all shareholders mint, small or big shareholders, the minting reward is roughly proportional to their shares, isn’t it?

Not at all. If your objective is to be fair to all shareholders who are minting, then propose a motion to raise the block reward instead of the reputed signer reward which only rewards the inner circle.

I’m not so sure. If the number of signers eligible to receive a reward is only 4 like it is now then you’re correct that only the few would be rewarded, but if it was raised to a large enough number to include all shareholders and everyone voted only for themselves as a signer, each shareholder should receive signer rewards that are equal to the amount of voting power/BKS they have, correct?

Those voting for themselves as signers would keep up with the inflation. Those apathetic shareholders who don’t bother voting for themselves as a signer would be diluted. This would put the majority of new BKS in the hands of active shareholders who mint and pay attention to what’s going on while the rest are diluted as a result of being apathetic and not following along with what happened. PoS difficulty would also greatly spike because most shares would now be in the hands of active minters.

@Sabreiib, do I understand your plan here correctly? If so, how long would this act of dilution take to get rid of the influence of apathetic shareholders? Could we just raise the reward even higher in order to make the dilution happen faster, or would that negatively affect those with less shares who aren’t able to mint as frequently? From what I understand, everyone should be able to keep up with the inflation from the increased signer rewards as long as everyone voted only for themselves. Also, how would we know how much dilution is enough in order to eliminate the influence and voting power of apathetics?

[GreatScott]

Those voting for themselves as signers would keep up with the inflation.

I am only using my reputation vote slots to down vote @Phoenix, because of his actions. I feel this is the best thing I can do for B&C with the shares I was, basically, gifted. I may just go ahead and campaign for reputed signer without voting for myself. I would make a good signer from the B&C customer’s point of view, but I would be pleasantly surprised if other shareholders will put much value in that. It is a popularity contest more than a product quality contest.

If the number of signers eligible to receive a reward is only 4 like it is now then you’re correct that only the few would be rewarded, but if it was raised to a large enough number to include all shareholders and everyone voted only for themselves as a signer, each shareholder should receive signer rewards that are equal to the amount of voting power/BKS they have, correct?

I haven’t fully understood how the block reward is dispersed to signers. If you look at the client, the block reward is 0.02 now. When you find a block, you yourself get the usual 0.01 BKS. The other 0.01 BKS goes to a single signer. I am not sure if it is chosen at random, or by weight, but the signers get reward every single block whether they themselves find it or not. They will earn far more shares than anyone else for doing nothing at this point, and it does not matter how many shares they own. Right now all reputed signers get 3.6 BKS per day, if I am assuming correctly.

[Sabreiib]

PoS difficulty would also greatly spike because most shares would now be in the hands of active minters.

@Sabreiib, do I understand your plan here correctly? If so, how long would this act of dilution take to get rid of the influence of apathetic shareholders? Could we just raise the reward even higher in order to make the dilution happen faster, or would that negatively affect those with less shares who aren’t able to mint as frequently? From what I understand, everyone should be able to keep up with the inflation from the increased signer rewards as long as everyone voted only for themselves. Also, how would we know how much dilution is enough in order to eliminate the influence and voting power of apathetics?

@Sentinelrv, your understanding is correct. As a VIP in PPC community, you may know how many PPC coins are minting now out of total around 25million supply. Low mint ratio, Isn’t it the big problem in PoS community? Now we have a good way to solve it.

In B&C network, the motions are law and passed by active voters, there are two ways to set dilution rate

1. Pass a motion to raise/lower the minting reward as suggested by @GreatScott. It costs at least one week to daft and pass a motion, and extra time for developers to modify the source code , and even more time for shareholders to uograde their client. However. real world is fast changing,“share” is not stable coin so it may plumbs 50% price over night ot double, this volatility will disturb B&C’s reward level.

2. Since active voters are the law, why not use a direct / agile way? Voters directly vote for dilution rate, and I suggest 30-70% inflation rate per year so force those not minting holders wake up and improve network security,otherwise we discard them. We must caltivate the minting/voting culture as a PoS system.

Any contributor such as forum advicer @GreatScott ,@creon @ConfusedObserver can get signer reward with a zero balance address as long as some voter like you. And those developers @backpacker providing MacOS client. Of course @sigmike, @glv @eleven also can be tipped in this way.

This is an exciting experiment! I suggest Sigmike hardcode the eligible signers to 32,000, so that every one can be a signer.

[Sabreiib]

. They will earn far more shares than anyone else for doing nothing at this point, and it does not matter how many shares they own.

Voters need to buy some hardware and spend time to follow B&C process on forum, these are all money, time is also money. Voters are doing something otherwise this network die due to no nodes at all.

[GreatScott]

None of that is required at this moment. If one was elected as a signer by their peers, they could literally disable their internet connection and use public wifi to cash out the BKS (assuming they could find a buyer). The only thing they need to do right now is get votes for themselves in blocks.

I do see your point and there is a cost, but not at this stage there isn’t.

[Sabreiib]

None of that is required at this moment. If one was elected as a signer by their peers, they could literally disable their internet connection and use public wifi to cash out the BKS (assuming they could find a buyer). The only thing they need to do right now is get votes for themselves in blocks.

I do see your point and there is a cost, but not at this stage there isn’t.

difficulty" : 0.00059359,

B&C minting difficulty increased from 0.0004 to 0.0006, 50% promotion due to electing a dozen of signers, you can imagine difficulty will soar if 30,000 signers ca be elect.

Assume “Alice” is an active member on forum and contribute much, shareholders use a small portion share to encourage her continuously untill she stops her contribution. She cash out and sell BKS via wifi is OK, she is deserved.

[cryptog]

I am still wondering why there are no assets showing up in the assets thumbnail though people are voting for some.
Is it because it would require some component that is currently lacking?
@sigmike ?

[sigmike]

So it’s basically an abstention.

Actually it’s not really an abstention. It’s a vote to keep the current value, whatever it is.

Would fixing Eleven’s code for voter abstention prevent apathetic minters from negatively influencing voting for motions/eligible signers/reward?

It depends how you consider apathetic minters negatively influence voting. It’s not clear to me. In the protocol upgrade it was clear: they (allegedly) prevented the protocol switch.

Would fixing Eleven’s code make it so these abstentions don’t influence voting at all?

They will influence the vote whatever we do. But we can change how they do it. Right now, regarding the new votes they vote to keep the current values. If we add the abstention system they will not vote at all. Then we have 2 choices: either calculate the result from less votes, or calculate the result on the same number of blocks by getting earlier blocks until we have enough blocks. This can be decided per vote (as it requires an update on each vote). During the discussion about abstention it was decided to calculate the result on less votes.

If we apply that to the reputation vote, then the result will be the same as before, because the apathetic minters currently already vote for no signer, so it’d be the same if we don’t use their vote (the reputation is the sum of the votes).

On the number of signers and the reward we use a median, so the result would change. It’s not easy to say how though. If you have 10% voting for 1 signer, 30% voting for 2, 40% voting for 10 and 20% abstaining, and the current value is 2, then:

• with the previous system the 20% actually vote for 2 so the result would be 2
• with abstention votes removed the median would be calculated only with the voting 80% and the result would be 10 (but would need a single vote to switch from 10 to 2 to get back to 2)

It’s not clear to me there is a benefit here. It depends what the problem is.

On the asset vote most of the values are median too, so the change would be similar. Except for the introduction of a new assets where it requires an absolute majority. So we would have to decide how it’s changed too.

Since signers reward NOT linked to asset or the message they send, why not pay them directly when they send cryptos? e.g. when 15 repute signers in ROOM6 finish a transaction of 10 BTC buying 2000 LTC, they just keep 0.01BTC or 2 LTC. If there is less business in this room, they will earn less BTC/LTC.

This is something they can do without a protocol change. All the signers would just have to agree on the amount and implement it in the code they use. Otherwise they would generate different transactions and could not agree to sign one. They already have to agree on the tx fee anyway.

I am still wondering why there are no assets showing up in the assets thumbnail though people are voting for some.
Is it because it would require some component that is currently lacking?

For a new asset to be added it requires an absolute majority of the last 2000 blocks to vote for it with the same exponent value. We did this because they are permanent decisions (assets cannot be removed and exponents cannot be changed). Other values are decided by median and can be changed later once the asset has been added.

So I guess there’s no absolute majority yet. Unfortunately we have not implemented an RPC that returns the asset votes.