@dan - that's fair but would you please justify your conclusion.
I would like to point out that this proposal came out from a joint BP session during Unconference in Seoul.
We have formulated this joint sentiment in a proposal for community discussion and voting.
Hence all sides of the argument should be explained to a community to enable them to make informed decision.
We respect your wisdom @dan, just relaying what was brought forth in Seoul (unconference). If you think this is a bad idea, please give us some more insights into your thinking.
Because lowering the vote threshold would further open the gates to BP positions being bought by large stake-holders simply to capture rewards? Your thinking then, is to incentivize voting vis a vie a precondition for participating in the REX rather than lower the barrier to entry?
@dan
again, again and again, please justify your opinions/critics.
as for proposal:
from EOS Romania point of view, this proposal it is not properly justified, not enough solid arguments have been brought forward.
why 50 and not 49? or 41, or 13 or 0.5?
simply throwing big words like "great teams" , "good talent" it is not enough. there are other ways to absorb the great talent if indeed it will not be any incentives left for it to stick around.
of course there's not a good explanation of why 100 was in first place but to change it now we should provide a good argument why, let us show b1 how it is done, not copy their way of doing things.
this proposal as it stands right now it is not good enough, not even close. it should not be voted, nor implemented.
also, why allow more BPs since we don't even have a proper way to measure their current performance nor if they abide by the BP agreement?
the number of paid BPs should not be a fixed number, first of all one should prove it is capable to be a BP, then be paid based on how much votes it has and number of blocks produced, but only if it qualifies to be a BP technically (a minimum set of tests shall be passed).
All good points. Why this number was chosen and not the other - the answer is simple: it came out from a brainstorming session among BPs. We took it upon ourselves to propose a single point in those recommendations. We could argue about exact numbers for ever and never come to any agreement - "analysis paralisys". Hence it sometimes helps to pick a reasonable number an run with it.
Also if you think it's terrible idea - just vote 'No'. We get more 'No' then "Yes' and put this issue to rest for once and for all.
I agree this doesn't resolve the issue of matching capable BPs to votes. It's a much bigger problem to solve that has to be solved outside of Blockchain.
I have big proposal for you in an new big project linking all you said about proof of concept consensus protocol, with new white paper soon. But, until then, I came with an sublime ask to you: I really need your support, please. I'm alone.
I know to solve this: It's a much bigger problem to solve that has to be solved outside of Blockchain.
I se it!
I know why (We could argue about exact numbers for ever and never come to any agreement - "analysis paralisys".)
Please help me, help us. It's real and I can explain all to you. Hoping in your believe and approach.
@dan - that's fair but would you please justify your conclusion.
I would like to point out that this proposal came out from a joint BP session during Unconference in Seoul.
We have formulated this joint sentiment in a proposal for community discussion and voting.
Hence all sides of the argument should be explained to a community to enable them to make informed decision.
We respect your wisdom @dan, just relaying what was brought forth in Seoul (unconference). If you think this is a bad idea, please give us some more insights into your thinking.
Has B1 voted yet?
To my mind that event will raise as many as 30 BPs to the distribution level or am I missing something?
Because lowering the vote threshold would further open the gates to BP positions being bought by large stake-holders simply to capture rewards? Your thinking then, is to incentivize voting vis a vie a precondition for participating in the REX rather than lower the barrier to entry?
@dan
again, again and again, please justify your opinions/critics.
as for proposal:
from EOS Romania point of view, this proposal it is not properly justified, not enough solid arguments have been brought forward.
why 50 and not 49? or 41, or 13 or 0.5?
simply throwing big words like "great teams" , "good talent" it is not enough. there are other ways to absorb the great talent if indeed it will not be any incentives left for it to stick around.
of course there's not a good explanation of why 100 was in first place but to change it now we should provide a good argument why, let us show b1 how it is done, not copy their way of doing things.
this proposal as it stands right now it is not good enough, not even close. it should not be voted, nor implemented.
also, why allow more BPs since we don't even have a proper way to measure their current performance nor if they abide by the BP agreement?
the number of paid BPs should not be a fixed number, first of all one should prove it is capable to be a BP, then be paid based on how much votes it has and number of blocks produced, but only if it qualifies to be a BP technically (a minimum set of tests shall be passed).
All good points. Why this number was chosen and not the other - the answer is simple: it came out from a brainstorming session among BPs. We took it upon ourselves to propose a single point in those recommendations. We could argue about exact numbers for ever and never come to any agreement - "analysis paralisys". Hence it sometimes helps to pick a reasonable number an run with it.
Also if you think it's terrible idea - just vote 'No'. We get more 'No' then "Yes' and put this issue to rest for once and for all.
I agree this doesn't resolve the issue of matching capable BPs to votes. It's a much bigger problem to solve that has to be solved outside of Blockchain.
I have big proposal for you in an new big project linking all you said about proof of concept consensus protocol, with new white paper soon. But, until then, I came with an sublime ask to you: I really need your support, please. I'm alone.
I know to solve this: It's a much bigger problem to solve that has to be solved outside of Blockchain.
I se it!
I know why (We could argue about exact numbers for ever and never come to any agreement - "analysis paralisys".)
Please help me, help us. It's real and I can explain all to you. Hoping in your believe and approach.