Sorry about that "ass" thing...

I would volunteer an altruistic node too, that leaves 99 to go....

Or the Lisk delegate pool could be made much bigger, I suppose, sharing the same gains amongst more people, but it could still be manipulated. You're right, the biggest problem here is caused by the amounts on offer - temptation will prove too much for someone.

Joel has replied to some posts here, for those interested:

https://forum.lisk.io/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=117

We ought to worry about it, Bitcoin has shown what happens to de-centralisation when some people get too much influence - the whole progress of BTC is being jeopardised by a few re-calcitrant miners. It's good to have this out in the open, it prevents a lot of nasty surprises.


I'm not on about one person, I'm on about organised groups.


The whole system is, as I see it, heavily weighted in favour of big wallets. Nothing needs to align.


We do... they will....  


I admire your optimism, but there are stories all over this forum that say it's misplaced - we've seen hundreds of different scams on these boards, probably thousands. I don't believe that Lisk is a scam at all, but I do know that there are people looking to scam from it, the voting system seems to be a weakness, we don't know if it "just works" because the stakes are potentially very much higher.

The more I think about it the more I understand how intractable this problem is. All methods have their pros and all have big cons, it's tough.

I am now thinking maybe the delegate positions should just be auctioned off once a year, funds raised going to something or other, perhaps a faux-dividend to every wallet in proportion to their Lisk held (?) - let the market do it's thing. If every system benefits the rich, we should just make them pay for it.

I think that what you describe would be the way it worked, but all out of sight, of course. The actual node owner would merely be an employee of the big wallet - instantly sackable for a better deal. As for the small holders, there is no " little slice of the pie", you're in the 101 or you're not.

There's questions on the forum, being ignored too.

It's not just the "richer the more voting power", it's also "the richer get richer which enables them to consolidate their position even further".

I've been looking at the BTS threads and this has been a constant issue there too.

The more I think about it, the more I think this could be Lisk's Achilles heel. I could have it all wrong, but no one has shown me how.

I've been reading about voting systems over the last few days and, to be honest, they are all flawed in the context of a cryptocurrency, which leaves a lottery component to even out the inherent bias, spread the wealth, make collusion much more expensive and much less certain. This needs to be followed by an enforced downtime of the node where it cannot be entered to the vote.

This does not guarantee that there will be no collusion and vote rigging, but it makes it much harder and more expensive to do so and it does a much better job at spreading the reward.

Remember, all that is necessary to get a slice of potentially very significant profits is to vote your server into the top 101, there could be next to no cost (relatively) to achieve this.

Also remember that the cost to vote is potentially very high for small holders, the vast majority of them won't vote (and won't care), leaving the big wallets to sort it out amongst themselves.

This isn't a case of people holding the network to ransom or attempting dodgy transactions, it's about a small, already Lisk-wealthy group of people cutting up the delegate profits (potentially very big) amongst themselves. As it stands at the moment, a delegate would get in the region of $10,000 per year. If Lisk gets to 10x's ICO (quite possible), that's $100,000 per year or $10 million between all 101 delegates each year. If you could control ten delegates, you're on a $1,000,000 per year - I think people might try to game the system for those kinds of sums.

Don't say that here, no one's interested....... all that matters is the nauseating vote swapping and fantasies of "$300,000" per year, a figure some one pulled out of their ass the other day....

It's not Gray.

There were no cheap ETHs, it never fell below ICO price on the exchanges.

He wouldn't need to purchase 51%, it could be done with a lot less. On top of that, it would have a self-reinforcing quality to it in that the more Lisk he gains from the node, the more Lisk can be put into voting for himself the next time. In a "perfect storm" scenario, where voter numbers, potential delegates and the price of Lisk intersect in the right way, a small group of people could have an overwhelming influence on the vote outcome.

This wouldn't necessarily be such a problem if every Lisk holder participated in the vote, but we know this won't happen and the vote will be decided by a very small demographic of Lisk holders, as happens in practically every other voting system.

Bitcoin is having problems with cabals and centralisation as I write this and it would be naive to think that Lisk couldn't have similar problems in the future, especially once the market cap hits a respectable figure and temptation proves too much - someone will try something.

It can already be seen here - the temptation is proving too much after some "out of the ass" figures have been bandied about. I would be concerned about some (by no means all) of the prospective delegates motives - they've shown no interest in Lisk until now and I doubt their intentions of securing the network over profit - at the first disappointment they and their nodes will be gone.

I write this based on my understanding of how Lisk will work. I may have missed something or just be plain wrong.... I'm open to education.

Here's a link regarding Bitshares which is using the same system. It explains my thoughts more clearly and also describes an interesting potential DDoS attack on delegates.

http://tpbit.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/thoughts-on-delegated-proof-of-stake.html

I agree that this is, at the moment, largely theoretical, but I see no harm in discussing it now.

I agree, SEO is largely bullshit and likely to backfire, I was just pointing out that Wikipedia should be put on the to-do list.

Hence the need to use a system that mitigates against abuse.

To be fair, he's right about Wikipedia.

If you wanted a pool of 500 potential delegates, you would just take the top 500 vote winners.

It would mitigate the problem of organised abuse of the system for three reasons:

1) The chances of a group of already organised potential delegates all being picked at the same time is remote.

2) An enforced "downtime" after spending a period as an actual delegate would also reduce the chance of someone organising something untoward.

3) It would cost more for large stakeholders to attempt organisation.


Any downsides? I'm not sure I can think of one, but I'm sure others will.

It seems to me that it would be using the benefits of both voting and lottery.

There is also the issue of cabals forming among the delegates, hindering progress. Just look at the problems a small group of big miners are causing BTC.

I'm only putting this out as a mental exercise, I have no idea if it would work or if it would be possible to implement:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition

Potential delegates could put themselves up for the vote, anyone getting a predefined proportion of the vote gets entered into a pool and successful delegates are chosen from this pool by lottery. Lottery to be held at predefined time intervals.

Don't flame me, just trying to think outside the box.

Just to let people know:

Bter has found my UNITY and put it back in my account - after only five weeks!!!

This was completely unexpected on my part - although, I doubt it is a coincidence - so perhaps this latest episode has caused them to get their act together and sort out everybody else's issues too?

I haven't tried to withdraw it yet, I will do so this afternoon.

Don't take this post as showing my approval for Bter - I still consider them to be a risky operation.

Of course not, that's a ridiculous statement. No one is suggesting running a t-shirt supplier competition. It's just a competition for the design itself.

You are conflating two different discussions.


It needs to look good, be memorable and fit with the focus of the organisation - where's the quantum physics in that?


Of course you have to find someone to make the other stuff... are you suggesting doing the whole thing with just one provider, come hell or high water? I don't know what "fit the new logo", means...

All this crap about manuals and the like is just stuff created to keep people in their jobs - things are rarely as complicated as professionals like to make out, except quantum physics and coding, I imagine.

The answer to your Nike question is $35, Twitter paid $15 for theirs.

There is a lot of talent on these forums in all kinds of subjects, including art based ones - I think it should be utilised.

I'll say no more.

Yeah, funny.

It seems to me that a contest would be a good idea. It would also be something that could be milked publicity-wise over the course of a few weeks rather than just one press release saying that "Lisk has changed it's logo"... yawn.....

Lisk is decentralised, perhaps other parts of the operation should be too?

It doesn't need to be that complicated.

Edit:

I'm not putting this up as a logo suggestion, just trying to show that it doesn't need to be complicated, in fact it's probably better when it isn't.

Check this out:

http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-how-much-the-worlds-most-iconic-logos-cost-companies-2013-3?op=1&IR=T

Hi Lin