[Draft] BKS grant to bring protocol 4.0 votes above 90%

[masterOfDisaster]

I don’t plan on creating only a motion.
I hope that what I have in mind is possible with a multisig BKS address:

1. make a motion to outline the plan and elect multisig custodians
2. grant BKS to a multisig address
3. distribute BKS from the multisig address to BKS addresses that mint 4.0 blocks
4. repeat step 3. until enough minting power is in the hands of people who mint with 4.0 clients (very well possible by waking up shareholders!)

[Nagalim]

Ok, now you’re not talking a one time dilution anymore. So do we give enough time between dilution events for people to notice and upgrade to catch the next dilution? Are we bribing people to become active, or are we rewarding those that already were?

[dysconnect]

Would it be better to penalize those who actually mint with <4.0 and never switched to 4.0 within a given time frame, rather than those that don’t mine with 4.0? I worry about those who only have a small amount of BKS (like up to ~20 BKS), who by chance might not get a block in a long period of time. It’ll benefit non-minters, but the purpose is to get the message across.

I’ll support an other 1-month time frame for waiting, after warnings are publicized at certain selected venues. We might also need a clause that this plan is void if we can update to 4.0 on time, which will likely be better for PR.

[masterOfDisaster]

Ok, now you’re not talking a one time dilution anymore

I was hoping to wake up people with the sheer discussion.
That didn’t work.
Now it’s time for the next step(s).

So do we give enough time between dilution events for people to notice and upgrade to catch the next dilution?

Exactly.
A one-time dilution was never my intention, although it would have been the more frightening one (I was rather trying to sound things out).

Are we bribing people to become active, or are we rewarding those that already were?

A bit of both.
As running this business is not enough incentive, we need to provide the apathetic guys with additional incentives to act responsibly.

[masterOfDisaster]

Would it be better to penalize those who actually mint with <4.0 and never switched to 4.0 within a given time frame, rather than those that don’t mine with 4.0?

Sure, only I don’t know how.
Distributing BKS to addresses that mint 4.0 blocks is the only publicly verifiable and relatively easy (for those who can parse blockchains…) operable approach I can think of.

I’ll support an other 1-month time frame for waiting, after warnings are publicized at certain selected venues.

The motion and the grant alone will take some time and create some efforts.
The nagging thing is, that if all pans out, all this effort is wasted, wasted by those who care to compensate the bad effect of those who don’t.

[Nagalim]

all this effort is wasted

Electing a BKS multisig for B&C would not be a waste.

[cryptog]

I think we should wait a bit more before adopting this kind of last resort.

Another thing is that we should think about is to use a lower necessary threshold, 60% or even 50%.

Why 90% should be necessary per se?

[masterOfDisaster]

Look at what happened to Peercoin recently after Peerunity with a bug was released.
The blockchain forked.

The closer you are at 50%, the bigger the risk that two equal forks occur.
In this case: one run by old clients, one run by updated clients.
We don’t want to risk that.

But yeah, let’s wait some more - we only wait for weeks now…

[dysconnect]

The upgrading issue has attracted criticism. While I agree with the sentiment that the time and effort need to be rewarded, and we should consider a better reward system than just minting, we’re trapped between a rock and a hard place, and it’s not because you and I want different things… .

[cryptog]

what about this?

Proposal to speed adoption of the reputation system

Lowering the switch threshold to 55% from its current value of 90%: 55% is the lowest percentage that we can be reasonably confident will prevent large numbers of consecutive orphan blocks as the switch occurs. While a 55% percent threshold brings higher risks of problems around the time of the switch, the risks are much smaller than the risks of substantial additional delay that the 90% threshold brings.

[crypto_coiner]

We should vote about the threshold of percentage of votes needed to switch to the new protocol.

[masterOfDisaster]

what about this?

a 55% percent threshold brings higher risks of problems around the time of the switch

Do you want to treat symtoms or cure the illness?

We should vote about the threshold of percentage of votes needed to switch to the new protocol.

The security and reliability of the blockchain can’t be created by a motion. It needs to be created by minting.

[masterOfDisaster]

I’ve created a draft for a membership of a BCE group that is yet to be formed.

[Draft] Motion to join BTF - masterOfDisaster

Copied from https://daology.org/proposals/d6cb661c7f9084efaa67b78f6d2660505c82efc9 ###Intro The BTF - ***B***locks & Chains Exchange ***T***ask ***F***orce unites a group of people who stand ready to fulfill custodian roles. The standard role will be a part of a multisig group. In special circumstances singlesig custodianship might be appropriate. ###Application @masterOfDisaster - below called “BTF member” - shall be one of the members of the ***B***locks & Chains Exchange ***T***ask ***F*…

I held the description quite unspecific, because I see need for more than just a “BKS subdivision”.
An “NBT subdivision” would be useful as well - e.g. to pay compensation to @backpacker for his work on MacOSX builds:

Do you want to create OS X builds?

So far I've spent a little more than 4 hours on setting up the environment to build bcexchange and nu. bcexchange is ready to go as you can see and I've successfully built the nu 2.1.0 app, but it's missing application icon, I'll get that sorted tomorrow and will provide the link to dmg here as well. After this initial setup is complete, I feel that generating every new version would take less and less time and I'll be able to find other things I can help with in terms of development, maybe so…

BKS holder can’t grant NBT and BKC have no use yet.
If a BCE multisig group held NBT, a BKS motion could allow payment of @backpacker for his efforts.
…just sayin’…

[Dhume]

I’m somewhat conflicted by this action but I do agree we have a serious problem which might require drastic action. However before we commit to such a rash solution I would like to see us email the initial BKS buyers. I myself have not received such an email so I’m assuming they haven’t been sent.

@JordanLee is there a specific reason why we can’t or shouldn’t use the mail list with the initial BKS buyers? I would like to send an update reminder using that list and see its effect on 4.0.1% percentage before we take other measures.

[masterOfDisaster]

I agree we should try all that’s possible to wake up shareholders.
In the meantime we should prepare plan b.

bcexchanged getinfo | grep blocks
    "blocks" : 426920,

bcexchanged getprotocolvotes
{
    "2.0" : {
        "blocks" : 787,
        "block_percentage" : 39.35,
        "switch_to_date_time" : ""
    },
    "4.0" : {
        "blocks" : 1213,
        "block_percentage" : 60.65,
        "switch_to_date_time" : ""
    }
}

[Dhume]

In the meantime I’m configuring my Rasp to have B&C running on it so I can mint 24h 7 days a week. Every little bit counts right

[masterOfDisaster]

Every little bit counts right

Right!
A boon for Nu, but a pity for BCE that there’s so many BKS frozen in NuSafe…

Don’t forget this, if you want your compiled version to be compatible with the official builds (with regard to wallets - the blockchain is on leveldb instead of libdb):
http://docs.nubits.com/nu-raspberry-minting/#installing-berkeleydb48-from-source---in-case-no-repository-with-compiled-packages-can-be-found

[Dhume]

I hope to have an alternative in the future but I’m not quitte there yet

[Sentinelrv]

@JordanLee is there a specific reason why we can’t or shouldn’t use the mail list with the initial BKS buyers?

They are most likely holding off on using the contact list until v5.0 is out with default feeds.

[Sabreiib]

As an active shareholder, I welcome the chance to significantly increase my equity stake in B&C Exchange at the expense of the disengaged and/or “evil” minters as you’ve described.

The fact has proven that there are no such evil miners and some people are in somehow delusion of persecution.

Ironically, they are neither active nor willing to buy more BKS, I guess they are thinking how to bail out from B&C.

In crisis, we see clearer about other people’s personality. Thanks for this crisis! I’ll draft a motion to fire any lamaster from duty.