A BitShares Constitution?

[Brent.Allsop]

Hi onceuponatime,

Remember, this is just a prototype system.  All this identity stuff, is just temporary till we get a more safe, secure and guaranteed verification process of who you are, which we plan on shortly providing with the new Bithsare Vote stuff.

As it says, the address fields are not required.  Perhaps you could, for the time being, just provide one of your Bitshare IDs, so we can all know who you are, until we have this prototype system replaced.  Or, you could, for the time being.  Just provide a psuedonymn.  Just think of this as the temporary test net version for people to play with and learn how to use/design, till we get the real Bitshares verification system wired in.

[onceuponatime]

@Brent.Allsop:  Please explain the Registration form. Why is "Legal Middle Name" the only required field, and not, say, "Nickname"?

I have fixed this issue by updating the descriptive text, so would be interested in feedback regarding if my fix is adequate.

Thanks for the feedback.

Your very polite persistence is both admirable and appreciated!


"* These fields are required simply to help prevent dual identity sock puppet cheating. No information provided will be used for anything else. If you check the 'Private' box, this information will never be publicly displayed on any page.

* These fields are not required to register and participate with Canonizer.com. In the future, there may be canonizer algorithms that require this info be provided, and there may be some financial reward offered for participating, so this info may be used for that purpose. For example, if you earn Canon Coins (shares in Canonizer.com), we may use this information to contact you for distributuion purposes if we go "cryptographically public""


Now you seem to have made every field except "Legal Middle Name" required.

I know you guarantee the information will not be used for any other purposes, but data bases get hacked all the time (even highly secure government and corporate ones).

If I wanted to be prudent, and yet still use your system, I would have to make up all the information I input in those fields. If I could do it once, I could do it twice or more times, so this as a sock puppet filter is not effective and not a sufficient reason to require such information.

I understand that you envision algorithms that would require such information in the future (surveys/consensus building based on age or location come to mind). And I am quite sure that you are good intentioned and transparent in your motivations. I am also quite sure, though, that you can no more guarantee data base security than could Target, the Defense Department, Visa/Mastercard, or so many others.  Rogue employees? Malicious hackers? Government subpoenas? A girl with far away eyes?

As one who has always refused to fill out census forms despite both governmental threats and assurances of security and necessity of the information for providing services, I think you would need a new model for the outliers like me (at least until we have attained the non-violent and free association of individuals that Dan has envisioned.

[Brent.Allsop]

@Brent.Allsop:  Please explain the Registration form. Why is "Legal Middle Name" the only required field, and not, say, "Nickname"?

I have fixed this issue by updating the descriptive text, so would be interested in feedback regarding if my fix is adequate.

Thanks for the feedback.

[Brent.Allsop]

On the 5th of November we shall forever remember the day we formed a decentralized autonomous community of members!

I wonder if the future will ever view this DAC Day in which 101 delegates signed a new constitution like we view US Independence Day in which 56 delegates signed the Declaration....

Wait, where is it said we are creating a constitution in Nov?

We've got to get the rudimentary voting set up first, so everyone can vote their Bitshares, before we can do anything like this.  For information about our effort to get this ability to vote your shares using Canonizer.com, see this proposal / development document:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uWpw93xlJk3qwqNAaiwvMeQmXkjUt7e8rco17DOP8UA/edit

If we get some help developing this, we may be able to get it done by Nov.  I have some capital to pay for such effort, either in BitUSD, Bitshares, Bitcoin, Canonizer shares, or whatever.  So if you know anyone that can help with this effort be sure to point them in our direction.

[yellowecho]

On the 5th of November we shall forever remember the day we formed a decentralized autonomous community of members!

I wonder if the future will ever view this DAC Day in which 101 delegates signed a new constitution like we view US Independence Day in which 56 delegates signed the Declaration....

[Mysto]

Are there any other ways to get stake into the system and away from btc38/bter

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think the biggest thing stopping people is bitUSD liquidity. Quite a few people are actively trading BTSX. They would use bitUSD the only problem is the low volume which is causing a ~3% wide spread. I have some BTSX on both bter and btc38 that I actively trade. I still trade in bitUSD but not with a large amount at all.

So increase liquidity is one solution. Another is wait till after the exchange votes, withdraw your money and vote. That might pressure exchanges to not want to vote since so much money is leaving at once.
But over all I think exchanges are voting with good intent. They have a large sum of money they are in charge of and by voting they are helping protect it.

[Method-X]

I think I am too opinionated to campaign in a political setting anyways. I don't want to feel like I need to bite my tongue just so that I won't be voted out as I felt when I was a delegate.

This is exactly what I've been thinking since I decided to run a delegate for marketing. I'm also very opinionated and I don't want to feel like I have to pander for votes. I've come to the conclusion that if I'm going to get voted out for my opinions then so be it. I will never pander.

[Pheonike]

We do need a Human Consensus Algorithm or Community Consensus Algorithm. A set of guidelines on how we implement changes to the system.

 The DAC's rule might be in stone, but we need procedures for carving those stones.

[CoinHoarder]

I changed my mind about a constitution. I do not think it is needed.

The real issue is voter apathy. I3/exchanges act as the judge, jury, and executioner, and thus control everything... they control delegates therefore they control the code base, dilution, etc... They aren't even doing a good job of it. Half of the delegates don't publish price feeds & there are multiple anonymous delegates under control by one person, yet a blind eye is turned.

I was voted out for being late to update once, yet I did a better job of being a delegate than half of the delegates that are currently voted in as they don't even publish price feeds. Almost all updates (except for the one I was voted out on) I updated within minutes-hours of the release. I have now given up on being a delegate... I think I am too opinionated to campaign in a political setting anyways. I don't want to feel like I need to bite my tongue just so that I won't be voted out as I felt when I was a delegate.

I haven't heard a good solution to fix voter apathy, but I think we should bring more attention to the matter and discuss it further.

[oldman]

I think I will write a personal constitution that is not binding on anyone nor the BitShares project so that people know what my values are. 

I don't think BitShares needs a constitution other than the code as adopted by delegates.

 

[Empirical1.1]

assume a marketcap of 2Bn - why would we need 8% dilution in this marketcap? would be 160 million for the employeed people.

in the near future maybe it is possible to change the dilution model to take the needed value from the stakeholders direct.

you hold 1.000.000 million BTS and the employeed people need 5% this year to work for us, so we take 50.000 BTS from this owner (as an example for all owners) so he will hold 950.000.000 BTS in the end of the year.

i know this is not common, but maybe the stakeholders will watch the employeed people closer and will higher and fire faster.

We need to see the controls for dilution and delegate's work processes.  My hunch is it all ties back to VOTE. But in the mean time, not knowing how much we'll be diluted, and to what gain, is the investor's greatest area of uncertainty.


So many people want to be delegates, and it scares shareholders that there could be 101 delegates diluting the system. There is no clear and standardized way to track these individuals.  And even then, will enough people actually recast their votes to get the over promising, under producing delegates out?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Imo, there's also a centralisation of active voting stake problem. BTC38 controls at least 10% which is more than enough to strongly influence delegate selection.

Once you add in dilution + TITAN, BTS requires a lot of trust in a centralised exchange  which kind of defeats the point imo.

Agree.  The system needs more distributed control.  What will the solution be?

The only solution I can come up with is that there will be incentives to keep value inside the system by offering rewards for voting.

Are there any other ways to get stake into the system and away from btc38/bter


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

An easier way to register a first account could help, I think BTC38 will only send BTSX to a registered account still, but I could be wrong. Incentives or more interest in actually voting could help, an argument in favour of dilution is now that there is more money available for actual projects we may see people take more interest.

Another solution is as suggested in this thread, linking BTS completely to a certain limit, so that to change it would never be possible, the same way Bitcoin would be unable to mess with its distribution at this stage. That would limit the damage a malevolent block could do and give the market more confidence. (Ideal for me is a hard cap that sets aside 10-20% of shares in the beginning for 5 years development and hope to be profitable enough to self fund after that.)

[carpet ride]

assume a marketcap of 2Bn - why would we need 8% dilution in this marketcap? would be 160 million for the employeed people.

in the near future maybe it is possible to change the dilution model to take the needed value from the stakeholders direct.

you hold 1.000.000 million BTS and the employeed people need 5% this year to work for us, so we take 50.000 BTS from this owner (as an example for all owners) so he will hold 950.000.000 BTS in the end of the year.

i know this is not common, but maybe the stakeholders will watch the employeed people closer and will higher and fire faster.

We need to see the controls for dilution and delegate's work processes.  My hunch is it all ties back to VOTE. But in the mean time, not knowing how much we'll be diluted, and to what gain, is the investor's greatest area of uncertainty.


So many people want to be delegates, and it scares shareholders that there could be 101 delegates diluting the system. There is no clear and standardized way to track these individuals.  And even then, will enough people actually recast their votes to get the over promising, under producing delegates out?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Imo, there's also a centralisation of active voting stake problem. BTC38 controls at least 10% which is more than enough to strongly influence delegate selection.

Once you add in dilution + TITAN, BTS requires a lot of trust in a centralised exchange  which kind of defeats the point imo.

Agree.  The system needs more distributed control.  What will the solution be?

The only solution I can come up with is that there will be incentives to keep value inside the system by offering rewards for voting.

Are there any other ways to get stake into the system and away from btc38/bter


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Empirical1.1]

assume a marketcap of 2Bn - why would we need 8% dilution in this marketcap? would be 160 million for the employeed people.

in the near future maybe it is possible to change the dilution model to take the needed value from the stakeholders direct.

you hold 1.000.000 million BTS and the employeed people need 5% this year to work for us, so we take 50.000 BTS from this owner (as an example for all owners) so he will hold 950.000.000 BTS in the end of the year.

i know this is not common, but maybe the stakeholders will watch the employeed people closer and will higher and fire faster.

We need to see the controls for dilution and delegate's work processes.  My hunch is it all ties back to VOTE. But in the mean time, not knowing how much we'll be diluted, and to what gain, is the investor's greatest area of uncertainty.


So many people want to be delegates, and it scares shareholders that there could be 101 delegates diluting the system. There is no clear and standardized way to track these individuals.  And even then, will enough people actually recast their votes to get the over promising, under producing delegates out?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Imo, there's also a centralisation of active voting stake problem. BTC38 controls at least 10% which is more than enough to strongly influence delegate selection.

Once you add in dilution + TITAN, BTS requires a lot of trust in a centralised exchange  which kind of defeats the point imo.

[carpet ride]

assume a marketcap of 2Bn - why would we need 8% dilution in this marketcap? would be 160 million for the employeed people.

in the near future maybe it is possible to change the dilution model to take the needed value from the stakeholders direct.

you hold 1.000.000 million BTS and the employeed people need 5% this year to work for us, so we take 50.000 BTS from this owner (as an example for all owners) so he will hold 950.000.000 BTS in the end of the year.

i know this is not common, but maybe the stakeholders will watch the employeed people closer and will higher and fire faster.

We need to see the controls for dilution and delegate's work processes.  My hunch is it all ties back to VOTE. But in the mean time, not knowing how much we'll be diluted, and to what gain, is the investor's greatest area of uncertainty.


So many people want to be delegates, and it scares shareholders that there could be 101 delegates diluting the system. There is no clear and standardized way to track these individuals.  And even then, will enough people actually recast their votes to get the over promising, under producing delegates out?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Shentist]

assume a marketcap of 2Bn - why would we need 8% dilution in this marketcap? would be 160 million for the employeed people.

in the near future maybe it is possible to change the dilution model to take the needed value from the stakeholders direct.

you hold 1.000.000 million BTS and the employeed people need 5% this year to work for us, so we take 50.000 BTS from this owner (as an example for all owners) so he will hold 950.000.000 BTS in the end of the year.

i know this is not common, but maybe the stakeholders will watch the employeed people closer and will higher and fire faster.