Quote from: Cobra on October 06, 2015, 02:47:05 AM

Quote from: StanLarimer on October 06, 2015, 02:07:15 AM

Get elected and get paid by the system to upgrade your rig to the size nodes required at any point in time.
There is no such thing as people who can't participate. They just have to be trusted by the stakeholders.
BitShares is the system that pays everybody, rich or poor, who is trusted enough to sign our blocks to get the equipment they need.

This was the reason (DPOS) I lost interest in August 2014 after you confirmed this is how the system worked via email to me. At the time the network had just launched and established itself with the 101 nodes. I have 0 faith in a system where I have to try to run a campaign for votes or get people to like me and vote for me. The task of running a node should not matter as long as the task at hand is performed properly by the hardware there should be no need for human interaction in the process or chances for delegates to collude on voting. I can see being voted out if you cannot meet certain levels of performance but they should be given a timeframe or deadline to upgrade as needed. (why not other nodes are there to fallback on).

The human aspect should not have anything to do with being selected as a delegate in my opinion. Why can't that process be automated or the system automatically kicking out delegates that do not meet performance levels and selecting new random nodes without voting? If you have a standby list of delegates that you need to climb up to reach the 101 would some not wait years?

A random selection of new delegates would solve the problem of fairness for all and give new users an opportunity to participate without voting. Let the nodes perform a task and take the human element out of it. Even if a delegate is doing their job properly a rotation should exist where they can only be in the 101 for so long.

I guess the bottom line is that this system is centralized and not much focus is put on fairness for all. With eMunie any user who chooses to run services and perform work in the network will be rewarded accordingly regardless of when they start, 1 day or 3yrs down the road. Decentralized........Fast.......Fair.

Can't think of anything more fair than the guys who have earned the trust of the most people being the ones to sign blocks. Its not like its a lucrative position or anything. People get paid for their expenses and time. So BitShares folks don't really care all that much who signs it. The guys who get the most votes are as good as any to do that thankless job. The jobs generally go to active community members who get fired if they stop being reliable - something that is immediately obvious so nobody worries about it much.

The new 2.0 version adds the capability for you to vote like someone else you trust to pay attention and choose wisely. Just tell the system to vote like Bart Simpson and forget about it. If you don't like his slate, you can change to someone else's slate or roll your own any time you want.

So the system is totally decentralized down to a vote for every single satoshi in circulation. There are many ways to focus your votes to select the hardware configuration that does the fault-tolerant processing. That is perfectly decentralized control. You are looking in the wrong place to get your decentralization if you're trying to count nodes in the globally distributed network.

Anyway, there are many ways to skin the cat. I guess its ok to base which system you use on what's under the hood instead of what it does for you. My roommate really liked his Hurst 4-speed competition shifter and Holly four barrel carburetor for some reason even though his Chevelle Supersport wasn't nearly as good looking as my '68 Mustang. But both got us up and down the strip every Friday night.

The question is, can we offer a product that enough people will find useful to earn us a return on the man years we spent building it?

If you prefer blue instead of red, we understand.