[ANN][LSK] Lisk | Blockchain Application Platform for JavaScript Developers

[redsn0w]

My question has not been answered yet. Isn't anybody here who can answer it?

I would like to join the signature campaign. Is it only available for Full Member and above because I do not see code for Member and Junior Member?

If you don't see the rank member or lower ... I think it means that there isn't any signature for them, so you can't take part to the bounty program (with your signature).

[MalReynolds]

Incredible!!! Should invest at least 1 BTC then

Duh.

Hey, it's all I got! wish me luck!

Good luck!

[GoldenEye]

My question has not been answered yet. Isn't anybody here who can answer it?

I would like to join the signature campaign. Is it only available for Full Member and above because I do not see code for Member and Junior Member?

Signature campaign is over.

[MalReynolds]

Your message are always in "i know everything mode".  There are a lot of old forum user here also with different name.So don't pretend to be a professor.

I often let my enthusiasm color my words inappropriately. I apologize for that and I thank anybody who gives me a "reality check" when I need it.

...this is one of the nxt ICO transcation:

https://blockchain.info/it/tx/d1d4c0de9338e96f1e60774ea58f8e93b3827be67a3f8c67b8825ce7f41c85d5

as you can see 0.3 BTC was valued 260$ dollar
I hope you know math.
have a nice day

The transaction you quote, dated November 23, 2013, occurred after fundraising for NXT was declared over on November 18, 2013.  See:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=303898.msg3620732#msg3620732

On November 20, 2013 the BTC price was $482 and rising rapidly to the "all time high" you speak of, which occurred a week or so thereafter.

https://web.archive.org/web/20131120104851/http://coinmarketcap.com/

So the price of 1 BTC was around $130 when the NXT ICO started on Sept 28, $204 a month later by October 29, and was pushing $480 at the end of the ICO on Nov 18.  The peak of $1000+ came soon thereafter - but that peak was definitely AFTER the end of the NXT ICO.

btw i don't want to go off topic so for me the discussione stop here  

As you wish.  

[Gianluca95]

I'm in ! I've invested something in this project

Which will be the exchange where Lisk will be available? (exchange with BTC for example)

[Forrest01]

Very interesting  data.  I have converted everything to current $415 BTC (yeah, I know, somewhat inaccurate, not "BTC price pop / price drop" adjusted) and added the most important one that you forgot.



NXT is in its twilight.  In mid-2014 it was valued ten times higher than it is now.  And those 21 BTC that started NXT were only about $220 each.

Thanks for this information

It would be useful to also have the ICO end date here to understand how much time each coin took to provide this ROI's.

[cannabanana]

My question has not been answered yet. Isn't anybody here who can answer it?

I would like to join the signature campaign. Is it only available for Full Member and above because I do not see code for Member and Junior Member?

You can get credit just by putting a link to lisk in your signature.  BUT!  I think the signature bounty is over.

[Nxtblg]

This is a story about an exchange

It has 33% of all lisk. It has 101 votes. It votes for 101 of it's 1 lisk wallets.

Everyone else is fucked.

Discuss

Nice to meet you. Interesting question.

[Forrest01]

This is a story about an exchange

It has 33% of all lisk. It has 101 votes. It votes for 101 of it's 1 lisk wallets.

Everyone else is fucked.

Discuss

Nice to meet you. Interesting question.

It is and I would love to see it addressed. 
It doesn't have to be an exchange either, it could be hand full of whales joining forces given that there is a financial incentive.

Max already answered this, see below post :
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1346646.msg14184427#msg14184427

[Nxtblg]

The part in red is not the problem. The problem is that in delegate staking, control can be owned by someone who has a plurality of the vote. Not "majority of LISK" or "majority of vote", but mere plurality of the vote.

That is a serious point. Do you know why hostile takeovers became a "thing"? Because it was all-but impossible to dislodge management through a proxy fight. Ben Graham himself noted this phenomenon, which he ascribed to ordinary shareholders being "supine."

Scoff at this fellow if you want, but he does know a thing or two about politics and how votes play out in the real world.

If you're interested, a fellow called landomata came up with a fix for his Nxttycoin. Every vote he runs on the Nxt system, he has a lottery. Each voter gets a number of "tickets" equal to the number of Nxttycoin that he/she votes. If you don't vote, you get no "tickets." The prize is an amount of Nxttycoin.

By so doing, he incentivizes voting and makes the "mere plurality of the vote" higher than it otherwise would have been. Now this fix is a trust-based hack - Nxttycoin holders have to trust landomata to be neutral and to follow through on his promise - but it is a fix.


EDIT: It looks like a similar fix is going to be added to Lisk:

...How we get more people voting:

We will introduce a "Forging Pool" in the future (as a dapp). Delegates can run them on their nodes and register their delegate account on the sidechain. With this pool the delegates can then distribute a part of their earnings to the voters automatically every X days.

This will create an incentive for users to withdraw funds from the exchanges and vote for trusted individuals. In order to confirm trusted individuals, we will introduce an "Identity Dapp" in the future, in which people can associate their account with an username, real name, social media profiles, photo, and much more.

More information about all this will follow before we launch.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1346646.msg14184427#msg14184427

[Kushedout]

This is a story about an exchange

It has 33% of all lisk. It has 101 votes. It votes for 101 of it's 1 lisk wallets.

Everyone else is fucked.

Discuss

Nice to meet you. Interesting question.

It is and I would love to see it addressed.  
It doesn't have to be an exchange either, it could be hand full of whales joining forces given that there is a financial incentive.

In theory, if a person/group has the ability to control enough weight to grab a delegate spot bellow 100, than any sit above that is guaranteed.

However, if they are forced to split the weight, this would decrease the likelihood of such scenario.

Or am I missing something? Lets discuss. I think the last offical comment made on this kinda brushed off the issue with the suggestion of possible dapp that would help midigate this concern.

[LiskHQ]

Which will be the exchange where Lisk will be available? (exchange with BTC for example)

We can't disclose this information. It's a matter of the exchanges if they want to announce it already or not.

My question has not been answered yet. Isn't anybody here who can answer it?

I would like to join the signature campaign. Is it only available for Full Member and above because I do not see code for Member and Junior Member?

You can get credit just by putting a link to lisk in your signature.  BUT!  I think the signature bounty is over.

Yes, this bounty campaign is over. 

[captainvest]

In theory, if a person/group has the ability to control enough weight to grab a delegate spot bellow 100, than any sit above that is guaranteed.

However, if they are forced to split the weight, this would decrease the likelihood of such scenario.

Whales will be whales in any system and don't think this actually aids in their ability to become more of one. In fact, if a whale were to garner support how would they do this? More than likely they would be buying seats which distributes more of the wealth evenly. But let's look at the system in general. It's something where voters essentially have the ability to elect delegates. If the people see and fear too much power from one delegate they have the power to take their vote away.

That is why I would suggest voting for candidates that reveal who they are, know their background, etc.

I would certainly like to hear other input on this too.

[Kushedout]

In theory, if a person/group has the ability to control enough weight to grab a delegate spot bellow 100, than any sit above that is guaranteed.

However, if they are forced to split the weight, this would decrease the likelihood of such scenario.

Whales will be whales in any system and don't think this actually aids in their ability to become more of one. In fact, if a whale were to garner support how would they do this? More than likely they would be buying seats which distributes more of the wealth evenly. But let's look at the system in general. It's something where voters essentially have the ability to elect delegates. If the people see and fear too much power from one delegate they have the power to take their vote away.

That is why I would suggest voting for candidates that reveal who they are, know their background, etc.

I would certainly like to hear other input on this too.

If the voting weight is not split, that means that person/group can grab ALL the seats above theirs... It wont matter who people vote for at that point.  This is assuming they full control over their voting weight.

[captainvest]

In theory, if a person/group has the ability to control enough weight to grab a delegate spot bellow 100, than any sit above that is guaranteed.

However, if they are forced to split the weight, this would decrease the likelihood of such scenario.

Whales will be whales in any system and don't think this actually aids in their ability to become more of one. In fact, if a whale were to garner support how would they do this? More than likely they would be buying seats which distributes more of the wealth evenly. But let's look at the system in general. It's something where voters essentially have the ability to elect delegates. If the people see and fear too much power from one delegate they have the power to take their vote away.

That is why I would suggest voting for candidates that reveal who they are, know their background, etc.

I would certainly like to hear other input on this too.

If the voting weight is not split, that means that person/group can grab ALL the seats above theirs... It wont matter who people vote for at that point.  This is assuming they full control over their voting weight.

How would the whale groups garner support to win ALL these seats?

[Kushedout]

In theory, if a person/group has the ability to control enough weight to grab a delegate spot bellow 100, than any sit above that is guaranteed.

However, if they are forced to split the weight, this would decrease the likelihood of such scenario.

Whales will be whales in any system and don't think this actually aids in their ability to become more of one. In fact, if a whale were to garner support how would they do this? More than likely they would be buying seats which distributes more of the wealth evenly. But let's look at the system in general. It's something where voters essentially have the ability to elect delegates. If the people see and fear too much power from one delegate they have the power to take their vote away.

That is why I would suggest voting for candidates that reveal who they are, know their background, etc.

I would certainly like to hear other input on this too.

If the voting weight is not split, that means that person/group can grab ALL the seats above theirs... It wont matter who people vote for at that point.  This is assuming they full control over their voting weight.

How would the whale groups garner support to win ALL these seats?

Lets say 5 to 10 whales have enough supply to grab sit #80 that means all they have to do is put the same weight on 21 more delegates of choice and they will also have sit 81-101.

[LiskHQ]

Lets say 5 to 10 whales have enough supply to grab sit #80 that means all they have to do is put the same weight on 21 more delegates of choice and they will also have sit 81-101.

I hope you saw my post on the last page?

[Kushedout]

Lets say 5 to 10 whales have enough supply to grab sit #80 that means all they have to do is put the same weight on 21 more delegates of choice and they will also have sit 81-101.

I hope you saw my post on the last page?

I did, there was nothing in-regards to my statement above.  My concern is not for a "51%" attack. Its the fairness of delegation system.

If a group of whales coordinate and put all their voting weight on a specific delegate to get him spot #80, that means they have the ability to do the same for spot 81-101.  The closer they get to #1 spot the more delegate spots they will own.

[favdesu]

Lets say 5 to 10 whales have enough supply to grab sit #80 that means all they have to do is put the same weight on 21 more delegates of choice and they will also have sit 81-101.

I hope you saw my post on the last page?

I did, there was nothing in-regards to my statement above.  My concern is not for a "51%" attack. Its the fairness of delegation system.

If a group of whales coordinate and put all their voting weight on a specific delegate to get him spot #80, that means they have the ability to do the same for spot 81-101.  The closer they get to #1 spot the more delegate spots they will own.

so even if this would happen. those people would own a huge stake in lisk and a profound interest in its success.

[bitseedmike]

Glad to see some discussion on this. The entire time Crypti has run I never saw more than about a 35% approval rating (this is percentage of all available votes, or 35M of 100M Crypti total).

The point Kush raises about incumbent corporate boards/top level management being hard to dislodge through voting is a valid one. Retail investors do not typically have the time or inclination to vote their shares, or research the candidates they are presented in a proxy. There is also the issue of brokers actually holding the shares instead of their clients. This leads to large institutional investors and very large individual shareholders being left to pick board members or try to dislodge them in a hostile take-over.

This is an interesting problem in Voting Theory. Someone could probably write a thesis on comparing the two methods for voting for Lisk Delegates - 1 Lisk = 1 vote for 1 delegate, or 1 Lisk = up to 101 votes at 1 for each of 101 delegates.

I don't see it being "unfair" for someone who has the interest to acquire enough Lisk, 1%, to guarantee himself a delegate spot. This helps strengthen the security of the network by having it secured by those who have a vested interest in its long term success. But, then, there are about 7 billion different definitions of the word "fair" on the planet.

Also, it seems like allowing the same large holdings of Lisk to vote for 101 delegates means a large block combined with low voter turnout from small stakeholders can control the entire slate of delegates. So I prefer 1 Lisk = 1 Vote for 1 Delegate.

I will be operating a delegate pool which will offer profit sharing with voters. My submission for a Dapp to enable Delegate Pools and Profit Sharing is at https://forum.lisk.io/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=27 . Please comment there if you have any suggestions for operation or features to be added.

I have been operating delegates on Crypti since DPoS was first introduced to it a year ago, and am currently operating the majority of the delegates on Crypti during the Transition to Lisk (mine are the cloud and rocket names). These will continue to be run for at least the next 6 months following the end of the Lisk ICO.

My initial delegate pool offering will be to hold the earnings for the Lisk Delegate Pool and split them with voters when the Delegate Pool Dapp is available based on the Lisk blockchain records. This data can be accessed via the API calls Max has posted above.