Topic: [ANN][LSK] Lisk | Blockchain Application Platform for JavaScript Developers - page 1931. (Read 3074324 times)

Quick Reminder!

Come join us on our other social networks as we are actively posting and monitoring them:

Official Lisk Reddit - Discuss general ideas and news with the community. Join us! We are growing!

Official LiskMarkets Reddit - Discuss price speculation, upcoming news or rumors!

Official Lisk Facebook - Like us on our Facebook page

Official Lisk Twitter - Follow us on twitter! Get quick updates on the network and news.

Official Lisk Forums - In depth discussions on the Lisk Platform, promote your Delegate and much more.

Official Lisk Chat - Day to day conversations, join us! We're there to chat with the community every day

Wow.

Your self-promotion is falling apart today, isn't it?

Did I touch a nerve? Do you feel your easy income being threatened?

I'm going for delegate,

I offer all proceeds to my voters in ratio to the lisk they spend voting for me minus running costs
Public accounts
Hosted at work on a static IP or some VPS, whatever I'm told to do.
Using whatever Dapp (being developed) will allow me to pay out the voters.

and

I can get Max, Oliver or both an invite to a very prestigious event in London where they can give a speech to several hundred International politicians and business leaders. The event is towards the end of the year and is held in a seriously fucking prestigious and world renowned venue.

Checked keys and works!

From what i can tell and have read and seen. yes , they are actively working on delegate pools that have profit sharing

Are they actually working on it or is it just promised? Because, if it's technically possible and payments can be enforced, I think I might STFU.

It's not perfect, but it is a way forward.

Ah ok i see clearer now , I would have to agree to be honest , it was one of the things i was thinking about when i was reading and investing and looking at the economical incentives, a doubling of delegates would lower voting power and increase decentralization , althou i am not too certain on the negatives that could be made with such a jump in delegates, i mean financially , people are still earning a very tidy sum for running a delegate . But not sure of attack vectors or possible manipulations of the system were it to be expanded like such, there could be non lol, but could become worse off . Like possibly voting being worth even less to the smaller people would they be less inclined to actually vote. The percentage of power distribution against the loss of actual delegate voting would need to be figured out without reliable figures.

I would be interested in this being talked about more , especially if the coin grows in value very quickly , would a increase of delegates not help the system better? surely , spreading the wealth instead of accumulation from the 101. is there any plan to perhaps experiment on test net or debate about it with developers.

This is great! And will incentive people to hold LISK and vote

Okay, all good then, thanks a lot for your answers, very appreciate this

It is possible (some software or Dapp) to make a "pool delegate"? when people will vote for "pool" and receive an % from pool earning (of course deducted cost of hardware run and a fee) This may be attractive for people with not so much coins to join their power. And from their votes to earning some coins, so earning will be spread to a large group. And make sense to someone to use his votes if earning something. Otherwise will be "vote for me and I vote for you" and this is not helping LISK. Of course there will be standalone delegate from some members with community support.

That's the web wallet, lisk is not yet released so you have no lisk there, you can see them only in the ico page

Yes, I do understand all of this, but it's not really relevant to my main concern, which is about the way delegates claim their position. However, if the delegate pool was to be made substantially larger, wouldn't any centralisation claims be easier to fend off?

Here's an interesting little thing about predicting voters turnouts... at least, I find it interesting:

There is an (admittedly disputed) formulae for this:


    PB + D > C,

    P is the probability that an individual's vote will affect the outcome of an election,
    B is the perceived benefit that would be received if that person's favored political party or candidate were elected,
    D originally stood for democracy or civic duty, but today represents any social or personal gratification an individual gets from voting, and
    C is the time, effort, and financial cost involved in voting.

For an average Lisk voter, we can already see that both P and B are essentially zero and I can't imagine D would be very high. C would likely be quite/very high due to the effort of reading about delegates and especially paying to vote.

Now look at it from a (selfish) large Lisk holders/group point of view:

P would be high, because a high Lisk holder or group can put a lot of Lisk into voting and quite possibly affect the outcome. B would be astronomical because he's hoping to get a delegate out of it. We'll leave D as before because we can afford to, and C would be possibly quite high due to cost, but not as high as B, because B is where the profit is.

You have 0 lisk in the ICO page from where you've bought lisk?

This is a problem all smart contract technology has , even ethereum , augur especially . they might as well be called "dumb contracts "

The blockchain is a ledger , secured by a consensus mechanism that is economically difficult to attack the larger it gets . any smart contract that requires any sort of "proof" of the contract being fulfilled , be that an escrow , and exchange , a betting market , anything outside of the blockchain. Then you have shifted the consensus to outside of the security of the blockchain.

People need to confirm the events that took place for the smart contract to be fulfilled, this is why augur runs on reputation because inside the blockchain the smart contract has no single clue what happened outside of the blockchain it is beyond its powers to be able to confirm or verify. So you have to rely on people to confirm what actually happen , Offering an incentive for them to not lie , because the consensus of people is centralized and a hell of alot less secure than the mathematical proofs of a blockchain ledger.

101 delegates isn't exactly fully decentralized but any coin with smart contracts cant be currently , it is impossible, they rely on an outside source to confirm the actions and fulfillment's of the smart contracts that aree outside of the blockchain.

With things like AT (atomic transactions) now there are ways to be able to do trades cross different currencies while still not needing someone to confirm that the transaction went thru , the smart contract can confirm for itself , it has bridged the gap and expanded the purview of the blockchain to another connected blockchain , but still for the majority of tasks people claim smart contracts can deal with, the inescapable truth is , that without a centralized authority that can confirm consensus to events outside of the blockchain , smart contracts are useless.

This is what i think Mal is talking about, this is a temporary solution to the fact that outside consensus is impossible for smart contracts to function without something in place to allow outside consensus , 101 delegates does seem like one of the best solutions currently to allow smart contract to function outside of the blockchain. but obviously as technology develops in the coming years and there are expansions to blockchain tech and the ability to reach consensus on events that take place outside of the blockchain , then it can become more deentralized , more secure and remove any potential bad human actors within the system

Successfully done but..is it normal to have 0 Lisk on the Page???

We know because virtually all elections in any sphere have poor turnouts - and this is when people don't have to pay to vote. It also unfair to class non-voters as "lazy", they could just not have much Lisk, - this will get worse if Lisk's value lifts to any significant degree. I am trying to find some stats from the Crypti voting, which I intend to use how such a voting mechanism is open to simple, cheap manipulation. So, if anyone knows where I might find this, I'd be grateful.


It's not. Lots of people have admitted this is a potential problem.

This is a reply from Max on the Lisk forum:

"In my opinion people shouldn't concentrate so much on the forging, delegates and DPoS part of Lisk. It's only "a means to an end". They should concentrate on the dapp part. "

This is, as far as I know, the first statement by Max on this subject and he seems to be telling us to not worry our pretty little heads about it - I'm doing my best not to read something into this, but it's getting more difficult not to.  I would have thought consideration of all aspects of Lisk was paramount - it's not like there's a shortage of people to spend time on it. It's also the only contribution I can realistically provide, I'm not a coder, not much of a techie, but I have had an interest in voting and election systems for some time, I do know a little about it.

I'm not sure that Lisk can be called decentralised when it relies on an effectively closed group of 101 delegates.

Rohit Khare's definition of decentralisation states:

"An open decentralized system is one in which the entry of peers is not regulated. Any peer can enter or leave the system at any time."

Does Lisk meet this definition?

I have invested a lot (for me) of BTC into this, so I am not fudding, I want it to work, but this issue is only going to get more pronounced as more money and trolls come into the scene - it needs sorting, one way or another.

I was originally fairly keen on the lottery idea, but my thoughts are changing. It seems to me that if any voting system is going to give advantage to the already well-off, why not just auction the delegate positions? I don't see that there is much difference between an auction and the DPOS voting system as it stands, except it would be more honest. It would also remain true to the ideals of "the market".

I also just validated all my keys for all transactions.I hope the launch will go on 11th April as planned without any delay.I am also excited to see big things happening in coming days in future.Glad to be part of Lisk community.

It's not a disaster, it's an inconvenience. It can be got from the Github, no problem.

Please, regardless of what you have read anywhere else that makes you think twice about generating your keys.

100% of LISK investors NEED TO GENERATE KEYS.

This has NOTHING to do with any Signature campaign.  You will not miss out on it if you contacted them early enough to get your name added to the campaign list.

GENERATE YOUR KEYS NOW, YES THAT MEANS YOU.  You the person reading this, Did you generate your Keys?

Done 

I know ICO participants need to generate keys before Lisk launches, but I thought signature campaign participants don't need to.

The post quoted below gave me the impression that signature campaign participants don't need to generate Lisk keys until after the launch of the coin. I thought participants would be contacted after the launch and asked to generate a key through the Lisk wallet. Did I misinterpret something, should signature campaign participants  generate keys now?