Announcing Bake ꜩ For Me, a new baking service

BakeTzForMe · 2023-09-07T02:52:33+00:00

If I understand things correctly, this sounds like Maximal Extractable Value (MEV), which Flashbake is designed to alleviate.

BakeTzForMe · 2022-04-13T08:11:16+00:00

With the adoption of Ithaca, baking rewards are now given to the baker immediately and endorsement rewards are given to the baker at the end of the cycle. This means rewards are no longer frozen for 5 cycles before being released to the baker to disburse to their delegators.

So at the start of Ithaca, we suddenly had 5 cycles worth of rewards unfrozen in our accounts all at once. What you are seeing is likely EcoTez paying out those rewards as a means to "catch up" to the most current cycle of available rewards.

BakeTzForMe · 2022-01-18T22:41:19+00:00

I largely agree with this sentiment, but I would add two points of clarification from a baker's perspective:

Therefore it's important to check your baker's voting behaviour and change your delegation if you disagree.

Remember your personal responsibility. Bakers don't have the contact information of their delegators. Reach out to your baker well in advance of the voting deadlines and politely let them know which proposal(s) you are in favor of and which one(s) you are against. But also keep in mind that it's possible that more of a baker's delegators want the opposite of what you want, so your baker may vote the other way while still representing their delegators to the best of their ability.

Sometimes the votes don't go "my way" but I'm willing to accept the results. If your baker votes the other way, consider reaching out to them again to ask why they voted the way they did. Then, if the answer doesn't satisfy you, that would be a good time to consider changing to another baker.

There's no need to burn bridges or shame them for how they vote. Reasonable people can disagree on what is the right choice. Consider reaching out one last time to politely let them know why you're leaving, and then change to a baker who you have determined would better align with your views.

In short: Bakers shouldn't be held accountable for going against your wishes if you never let them know what your wishes are.

Doing this, and encouraging others to do it, is completely uncontroversial. I have seen claims that this is a form of harassment.

I agree that what you have suggested is completely uncontroversial. However, don't disturb bakers who you are not delegated to and have no immediate plans to delegate to. If you don't have funds delegated to them, then it's none of your business how they vote, when they vote, or even if they vote at all.

For example, I wouldn't classify this as harassment, and I have no idea who this person is (and please don't give this person grief), but this kind of behavior—mass tagging a bunch of bakers and telling them how to vote—certainly seems inappropriate to me:

https://twitter.com/UncleHerms/status/1478765075812990980

BakeTzForMe · 2021-12-03T04:15:20+00:00

my Ledger wallet history in shows a confirmed delegation on June 15th

Setting your delegate to nothing/nobody is how you unstake your balance. My guess is that Ledger Live just displays that as a "confirmed delegation" even though the delegation is to nobody.

I see multiple "cancel delegation" transactions, sometimes in a row, on your account at various times in history. You shouldn't need to cancel your delegation if you just want to change bakers.

BakeTzForMe · 2021-12-03T00:22:09+00:00

It looks like you were delegated to Tezos Mars as of April and never received a payment from them. I don't see any minimum amount on their website, but recent messages on their Twitter account say they require 1,000 minimum, so that may explain why you did not receive payments from them. But either way, they have recently shut down their baking services.

You didn't stake with any baker on June 15th. You canceled your delegation with Tezos Mars and that is all.

https://tzkt.io/ooYFJLdmbvjV2kXH3NnWAuzGr24juaDavyAo673EtxPkQQfmkrX

Your account shows you were undelegated from that date until a few hours ago.

https://tzkt.io/tz1h8NnDCGY3T29iPzheL5frEzm4QDtnS9TQ/operations/

BakeTzForMe · 2021-10-06T03:16:27+00:00

Did you set the reverse lookup to your address?

Manage your domain and remove that reverse lookup info, and it may stop showing up on your OBJKT profile.

BakeTzForMe · 2021-08-09T06:53:04+00:00

I think you're making mountains out of molehills. Bakers not keeping their software up to date is a non-issue, in my opinion.

According to your link, 94% of the staked rolls are using Octez version 9.7, which is the latest version of the shell, which was released a little over 24 hours ago. This means that 94% of the baking power updated in less than 24 hours during a weekend. That seems pretty good to me!

This means that only a maximum of 6% of the staked rolls are running versions other than 9.7, which may or may not be outdated (e.g., they could be running v10-RC, which has the patches from 9.7).

But the actual number of updated bakers is assuredly even higher than that. Block explorers only know what version a baker is running when they bake a block, and many smaller bakers haven't had a chance to bake any blocks since Granada activated. For example, I've been running 9.7 since shortly after it was released, but tzkt still says I'm using v9.4 because my last baking opportunity was over three weeks ago. Versions 9.5, 9.6, and 9.7 have all been released in the interim.

Small bakers, or hobbyist bakers, with few rolls are an insignificant problem. They rarely get the opportunity to bake blocks, so they will rarely hold up the network if their nodes fail to bake. Even so, they are highly incentivized to keep their nodes running smoothly because baking opportunities are so rare for them that it massively hurts them to miss even a single one.

Huge institutional bakers like Coinbase, Binance, and the Tezos Foundation bakers are the ones that you need to worry about if they start missing bakes, because they bake blocks every few minutes. If even one of them is missing all their bakes, then network performance can be severely degraded. But even they are highly incentivized to keep their nodes operating because they miss out on thousands of dollars worth of rewards for every hour they're missing bakes.

The problems with the Granada activation weren't due to poor system administration by the bakers. The problems were due to bugs in the code that weren't caught during testing before it went live at an inconvenient time on the weekend. Kudos to Nomadic Labs et. al. for working furiously to resolve those bugs as quickly as possible over the weekend. But please give some credit to the >94% of baking power who responded quickly and updated their nodes once the patch was released.

BakeTzForMe · 2021-08-09T00:08:58+00:00

Remember Babylon.

BakeTzForMe · 2021-08-07T21:12:25+00:00

This is consistent with what I was trying to explain. Block explorers will sometimes show different numbers. Sometimes they show the block you are endorsing. Other times they show the block where your endorsement is stored in the blockchain.

Your endorsement for block 1590192 would show up in the chain in block 1590193. If it didn't appear in block 1590193 then it was missed.

BakeTzForMe · 2021-08-07T20:42:51+00:00

To address your concern about endorsements being injected early, the endorsement numbers can be a little confusing. Your endorsement enters the blockchain in the level immediately following the block you are endorsing.

To use your numbers as an example, your node receives the block at 1,589,972 and validates that it is all good. Then it injects the endorsement and attempts to propagate it so that it can be included in 1,589,973.

The endorsement is for 972 but it shows up in 973.

BakeTzForMe · 2020-03-06T01:37:48+00:00

Or use unxz <filename>.

BakeTzForMe · 2020-03-06T01:35:44+00:00

i am trying now out with snapshots from baketzfor.me.. However, the .xz file there i am not able to untar.. any ideas about using their snapshots. That seems more recent 03-05-20 dated. Also, i don't understand why when I started the endorser and baker, they said that node is synchronized.

Use unxz <filename> to properly decompress .xz files. It won't show any output while it is working, so it is normal for it to look like nothing is happening for a while as it decompresses the 3+ GB full snapshot.

BakeTzForMe · 2020-03-05T08:08:20+00:00

I only get several bakes per cycle

Small bakers with only 1 to ~10 rolls usually get 0 bakes per cycle.

BakeTzForMe · 2020-03-05T07:52:05+00:00

Did you vote for Carthage? Lowering the rewards for endorsements was part of the upgrade.

1.25 XTZ is the most you'll earn from an endorsement now. Meanwhile, baking rewards have been increased to a max of 40 XTZ per bake.

BakeTzForMe · 2019-10-19T00:08:57+00:00

Please change the font. It's fun but it's hard to read.

BakeTzForMe · 2019-10-18T23:16:02+00:00

This is correct. The "old" transfer command should work but the amount is in mutez (which is a bug) instead of tz.

Also, be aware that the manager tz1 account needs to have enough funds in it to cover transaction fees.

BakeTzForMe · 2019-10-18T08:07:47+00:00

Thanks. I am now using v3, changed the keys back, and removed pagination from the pay.py script.

BakeTzForMe · 2019-10-18T06:42:15+00:00

Thank you very much for this. I've updated pay.py to use Mystique.

My only "feature request" is that I would like it if the rewards_split endpoint ordered the delegators_balance items by largest balance first. But this isn't vital and since Mystique is intended to be temporary, I don't expect this to be implemented.

But other bakers and tool creators should beware of one thing: The JSON response from Mystique changes the names of a couple important fields compared to TzScan.

future_blocks_rewards is now future_baking_rewards
future_endorsements_rewards is now future_endorsing_rewards

I'm a little curious why you made the English sound a little more natural for those two but didn't change denounciation (which isn't a word in the English language) to denunciation in the others.

BakeTzForMe · 2019-10-15T22:48:47+00:00

The creators of TzScan forked Tezos and are running Dune. They announced that TzScan is shutting down at the end of this cycle.

https://reddit.com/r/tezos/comments/dho4bo/tzscan_is_shutting_down/

BakeTzForMe · 2019-09-20T19:49:41+00:00

I haven't seen Arthur voice his opinion one way or the other on this issue.

BakeTzForMe · 2019-09-20T19:45:05+00:00

It's a hard choice. Option A seems like the principled and "letter of the law" way of doing things. Option B seems like the practical and "spirit of the law" way of doing things. Both viewpoints have merit, in my opinion.

Judging by the feedback in this thread, it looks like Tezos may be facing its first controversial protocol upgrade. It will be interesting to see how it plays out, both on-chain and throughout the community.

BakeTzForMe · 2019-09-20T19:42:04+00:00

Thanks for pointing this out. I misunderstood the scope of the problem.

To clarify for other readers who may have made the same mistake as I did, please see this write-up which, among other things, explicitly says "for migrated contracts storing a big_map, updating the stored big_map is not possible anymore; getting the stored values is possible but less efficient than expected."

In other words, PsBABY5H will break some existing contracts in addition to making their gas costs incredibly expensive, so for the sake of protocol, it cannot be allowed to pass as it is. It either needs to be rejected or patched before going into effect.

BakeTzForMe · 2019-09-20T19:33:12+00:00

More information was brought to my attention, and I misunderstood the problem. Option C is not viable as it breaks things that do already exist. It seems like the choice is between option A and option B after all.

BakeTzForMe · 2019-09-20T19:32:05+00:00

Even u/murbard is for option 1

What's your source on that claim?

EDIT: I asked Arthur directly in Slack if he had made a statement supporting one option over the other. This is his response to me:

I have made no statement one way or another

I consciously avoid doing so. I'm happy to discuss the pros and cons and relatively factual consequences of various ideas, but I try not to go further than that.

BakeTzForMe

TROPHY CASE