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

B&C Exchange
#20

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!)
#21

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?

#22

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.

1 Like
#23

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

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).

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.

#24

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.

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.

#25

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

2 Likes
#26

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?

#27

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…

#28

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… .

1 Like
#29

what about this?

#30

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

2 Likes
#31

Do you want to treat symtoms or cure the illness?

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

#32

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

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:

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’…

2 Likes
#33

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.

2 Likes
#34

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" : ""
    }
}
1 Like
#35

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 :wink:

#36

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

1 Like
#37

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

#38

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

#39

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.