I agree, would be better to have a distinct SPS proxy setting for that and a set_sps_proxy operation for the RPC nodes. This would require to add an additional field like sps_proxy in the get_accounts result and the list_accounts method would need to be updated to be able to search for accounts ordered by sps_proxy.
I hope something like this is planned for a future hardfork.
At least we (all) now know how it works.
Well, probably not surprising, but I disagree, and I would be opposed to such a change. The original spec for SPS stated that voting for proposals would work like voting for witnesses. And it was not an accident that we didn't create a separate proxy process for proposals. Adding the need to set multiple proxies for two very similar kinds of voting just means more things for a user to manage. In practice, I don't think most users should be proxying their vote anyways. The two main cases where I think it makes sense to proxy your vote is 1) when you have multiple accounts (this applies to a number of large stakeholders) and 2) when you're no longer actively involved in steem and are just holding a passive investment. In both of these cases, you're probably going to want both to proxy to the same place.
No hard feelings, you guys did a great job with planning, developing and testing the SPS. So far I didn't see any major issue coming up and it seems to work stable.
Maybe my wording was a bit rough, but I still think that it would be better to have a separate proxy setting for that. An alternative solution could be to prioritize the direct votes, so that there is a way to vote for proposals, which the proxy doesn't want to support.
I agree. Some witnesses had something like 'set us as witness proxy, if you trust our work and you don't want to keep on track what all the other witnesses do' in their post signature. I guess many people don't know that they cannot support any SPS worker as long as they are proxying their vote. You know that most people don't read the technical details as carefully as developers do.
In this case, I think the better and simpler thing to do is to drop their proxying and cast their own votes.
That is one of the positive effects of the current logic. More people with proxies set will begin to inform themselves about how it all works and they may want to make use of the new possibilities too, which is only possible by resetting the proxy... :)
Hmm, I wasn't aware of it, but that "set us as witnes proxy, if you trust our work and don't want to keep track what all the other witnesses do" sounds like a particularly terrible suggestion. To me, there's a big potential conflict of interest in having witnesses also being proxies. It's almost a shame I can't downvote witnesses for that :-)
HUmm.... the down voting witness is indeed interesting. After all, I may want to prevent more a "problem" that "promote" a good thing.
I desagree absolutely.
Having witness proxy linked to SPS voting has broken some of my other accounts proposal voting to a non desired direction(sorted now ofc). That’s not good at all, at least to me.
I don’t think setting a witness proxy implies not being active on the community.
I’m fortunately monitoring the proposals stats regularly and spotted something was wrong, then read this post and noticed the issue...it’s not a light one, it’s actually a mess in the proposals votes and have affected the stats of my chosen ones.
This is not one would spect although it may appear reasonable.
I stick on a separate behaviour or at least a massive communication to users how this works for the proposals system. It caught me unaware, I have not enough time to read deeply the tech info and I think I’m the average user here.
Cheers
My suggestion is that the UI's (e.g. steemit, busy, steampeak, etc) should just warn a user if they try to vote with a proxied account that their vote will not count until their proxy is canceled.
That would be awesome...I would include it in the steemproposals site as well.
Steemit has opened an issue to make this change in their UI: https://github.com/steemit/wallet/issues/103
That’s a cool start to sort this out. 👍
So as a user (example) that does not want to vote, but wants two types of "profiles" of proxy to vote, that user is doomed to choose either one or the other?
I am pretty certain that users that vote for witnesses like me, have a completely way of voting for proposals, again, like me! For me it does not make sense that proxies fill the same bucket. Even if that means less participation. For me, a different problem.
In regards to the work involved. I am fine with the current strategy as long the separation of the proxies is planned and will be carried over in the next HF or soft.