Author Topic: A BitShares Constitution?  (Read 17398 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline dna_gym

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 20
    • View Profile
I am in strong favor of controlled by a law or constitution that should be stable as possible as it can be, instead of relying on so called "trusted" people who have more power than others and harness the power to implement "better and flexible" policy.
I actually don't trust the "trusted" authoritative people.

Offline Geneko

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 187
    • View Profile
I may go slightly off topic but this could be insightful  :-\


Exactly, and the first crypto currency community that can amplify the wisdom of the entire herd, and get the entire herd to change directions on a dime, without significant losses of the sheep, no matter how dumb, will blow any contract or “constitution” based bureaucracy away, with a leader making decisions before knowing how many of his heard will follow him.


This is in my humble opinion very interesting topic, making the essence of “proposed hard rules” only maybe stated a bit different: “that can amplify the wisdom and resources of the entire herd”


Exactly, we need to have a way to rigorously measure, concisely and quantitatively, how many people are willing to support any particular action. 


Voting Dac could do the trick.


 And we need to be able to dynamically change what we are proposing in an efficient and easy way, which will ensure everyone is still on board, until we get things at least near unanimous, so we don’t lose anyone.


This is the tricky part, at least for me. Could you please explain in plain language how exactly it could work? 

Offline matt608

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 878
    • View Profile


I don't think there should be a political litmus test for becoming a delegate. It's like saying in order to get a job you have to pass a political test or belief in these principles. I don't think it will have a positive effect.

Instead if there are principles then put that in the design of the source code. Express your political principles in the code itself but don't make a constitution. If something isn't allowed then simply express your principles as a delegate and that you refuse to code or contribute to anything which goes against your principles.

Every delegate should be able to express their own principles or non at all. The majority of delegates will just be people who can get stuff done or who know people.


 +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5%

Why should a delegate who wants to built a lightweight client (or anything) be expected to read this?  The system is already elegant.  Stakeholders vote for delegates.  Adding some other piece of writing that for some reason everyone is supposed to look at is completely superfluous.  Where this belongs is in BM's delegate profile page.

Offline Empirical1.1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
    • View Profile
The main thing I'd at least like to do is give the market confidence that dilution is capped and is VERY difficult to change. I really think that's where the market is at, but that is also something I'd like to see on a personal level, so could be biased.

Constitution should be no more than 4 sentences


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Regards 'constitution' it seems like that is probably out, even though I suggested it, it seems enough people are not fond of it. A few key broad values seems possible & I agree that it should be short and sweet.

Offline starspirit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 948
  • Financial markets pro over 20 years
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: starspirit
People, People, People…

Constitution technology is more than 200 years old.  All you would get from that is a polarized, deadlocked, bickering 2 party congress that can’t do anything.  How much time would it take to build a constitution which would have enough consensus?  Who is going to write it?  How much consensus is enough?  How could we rigorously measure how much more consensus we had achieved by any proposed changes?  If we only lose 25%, is that enough?  Many have expressed doubts about us being able to even write such a contract, and I am in that camp (unless maybe we used Canonizer.com).  Even then it would take years.  I love it when The bytemaster talks about no contracts!!  Another of his brilliant ideas.  But a constitution is just a contract that will start polarizing everyone, which will hobble us, and make us very vulnerable to an intelligent community without such unintelligent bureaucratic red tape.

I agree with you. We need to have a dynamically generated smart social consensus instead of a "constitution". We need a constitution which constructs itself based on how we vote. There is no benefit to relying on the methods of old when we don't even have the same limitations.

It is very polarizing and that is why I'm against doing a constitution right now. First you need Bitshares VOTE before you can even attempt something like a constitution. Then you need in my opinion algorithmic voting with CP-nets.

We simply do not know what works, what doesn't, and the data should shape our principles rather than setting stuff in stone before we even know ourselves and our preferences. It's just too soon.

Some stuff we can look at the data and say we believe would be the social consensus. Data shows we believe in it even without a vote but as far as preferences I think they should be asked. A CP-net (conditional preference network) should allow for feedback on the level of preferences. Many preferences are conditional, principles can be set if you simply gather preferences and let the system adapt to preferences.

For example when we have data which allows the DAC to know what everyone wants, how everyone thinks about different issues, then we will know exactly what principles pull us together.

I would say it's obvious we all like technology but we aren't all transhumanists. I would say we all value freedom but we don't agree on what that is. We may or may not believe in socialism but we all seem to believe in either private property or personal property.

But right now it's just too soon to come up with a constitution. We don't know for sure what everyone beliefs and until we collect the data and analyze it then it's not right to speak for everyone. When people can vote on every sentence in the constitution then you can think about doing it collaboratively.

I think if we have a constitution it's better to put it in code. Until that time the closest thing we have to it is the social contract.
People have all sorts of different beliefs, and why shouldn't anyone be welcome to this community? A constitution could weed out people of a common viewpoint, but would it not be better to embrace everybody and let the best belief systems compete for value in the community?

I wonder if we had to bring together a set of common beliefs for this community, that it would not amount to more than this:

- bitShares is an open non-exclusive community that welcomes all participants
- those that create value in the community have the opportunity to be rewarded by the community for those efforts
- all participation is voluntary, and cannot be compelled, including the contribution of personal time, services, property, or other assets
- consensus is based on an individual's stake, but no consensus will be allowed to breach the voluntary rights of individuals
- conflicts will be resolved through community monitoring and action and not through enforcement or any threat of violence

Offline donkeypong

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2329
    • View Profile
I'd like to have a BitShares Constitution. But I'd like it to be a statement of shared principles, values and beliefs. I'm less in favor of using it to frame a governance system or codify rules. I think we've seen what happens when systems and rules (even if they seem like winning ideas that will last forever) may not anticipate future events. Rigidity is a bad recipe. It's better to be flexible and to maintain the ability to adapt to new circumstances. The Constitution should only cover the principles that WON'T be adapted or changed for any reason, ever.

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
Constitution should be no more than 4 sentences


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If that is true, you can canonize that, and start to build consensus to see just how much consensus there already exists for your 4 lines.  Or, just post the 4 lines here, and I can canonize it for you, along with what I do and don't agree with, so everyone else (that isn't afraid of the MORMONS) can do that same, and so we can start knowing, concisely and quantitatively, exactly what everyone may still disagree with, and what modification will be required to get unanimous expert consensus.

You're the guy behind Canonizer Organization right? Could it incorporate CP-nets and algorithmic voting?

As a user my preferences should be collected by an algorithim. A voting language should allow me to describe my vote as an algorithm. Could Canonizer provide a simple front end to generate these voting algorithms for users dynamically and automatically?

I think if Bitshares VOTE and the delegate system stay as it is now it will easily be corrupted by political ideology and dogma. That could be a problem if people were to start voting against their self interest or preferences because of political ideology and dogma. It's a problem because propaganda could trick people into voting malicious delegates into critical positions.

https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline Ander

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3506
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Ander
If nobody is thinking anything like the above, what, exactly are you afraid of?

I'm not actually afraid of anything.  Canonizer seems interesting.

I just want to meet someone who is both mormon and transhumanist, because that seems really unique.




Apologies for taking this thread super off topic.

<3 anyone who likes bitshares, no matter what their philosophy is!


https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
People, People, People…

Constitution technology is more than 200 years old.  All you would get from that is a polarized, deadlocked, bickering 2 party congress that can’t do anything.  How much time would it take to build a constitution which would have enough consensus?  Who is going to write it?  How much consensus is enough?  How could we rigorously measure how much more consensus we had achieved by any proposed changes?  If we only lose 25%, is that enough?  Many have expressed doubts about us being able to even write such a contract, and I am in that camp (unless maybe we used Canonizer.com).  Even then it would take years.  I love it when The bytemaster talks about no contracts!!  Another of his brilliant ideas.  But a constitution is just a contract that will start polarizing everyone, which will hobble us, and make us very vulnerable to an intelligent community without such unintelligent bureaucratic red tape.

I agree with you. We need to have a dynamically generated smart social consensus instead of a "constitution". We need a constitution which constructs itself based on how we vote. There is no benefit to relying on the methods of old when we don't even have the same limitations.

It is very polarizing and that is why I'm against doing a constitution right now. First you need Bitshares VOTE before you can even attempt something like a constitution. Then you need in my opinion algorithmic voting with CP-nets.

We simply do not know what works, what doesn't, and the data should shape our principles rather than setting stuff in stone before we even know ourselves and our preferences. It's just too soon.

Some stuff we can look at the data and say we believe would be the social consensus. Data shows we believe in it even without a vote but as far as preferences I think they should be asked. A CP-net (conditional preference network) should allow for feedback on the level of preferences. Many preferences are conditional, principles can be set if you simply gather preferences and let the system adapt to preferences.

For example when we have data which allows the DAC to know what everyone wants, how everyone thinks about different issues, then we will know exactly what principles pull us together.

I would say it's obvious we all like technology but we aren't all transhumanists. I would say we all value freedom but we don't agree on what that is. We may or may not believe in socialism but we all seem to believe in either private property or personal property.

But right now it's just too soon to come up with a constitution. We don't know for sure what everyone beliefs and until we collect the data and analyze it then it's not right to speak for everyone. When people can vote on every sentence in the constitution then you can think about doing it collaboratively.

I think if we have a constitution it's better to put it in code. Until that time the closest thing we have to it is the social contract.



« Last Edit: November 01, 2014, 04:59:18 am by luckybit »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline Brent.Allsop

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 242
    • View Profile
    • Canonizer.com
Constitution should be no more than 4 sentences


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If that is true, you can canonize that, and start to build consensus to see just how much consensus there already exists for your 4 lines.  Or, just post the 4 lines here, and I can canonize it for you, along with what I do and don't agree with, so everyone else (that isn't afraid of the MORMONS) can do that same, and so we can start knowing, concisely and quantitatively, exactly what everyone may still disagree with, and what modification will be required to get unanimous expert consensus.

« Last Edit: November 01, 2014, 04:55:49 am by Brent.Allsop »

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
I want to understand the Chinese opinion.

I don't want this to be a binding contract, but rather an expression of opinion that most hold in common.

I don't think there should be a political litmus test for becoming a delegate. It's like saying in order to get a job you have to pass a political test or belief in these principles. I don't think it will have a positive effect.

Instead if there are principles then put that in the design of the source code. Express your political principles in the code itself but don't make a constitution. If something isn't allowed then simply express your principles as a delegate and that you refuse to code or contribute to anything which goes against your principles.

Every delegate should be able to express their own principles or non at all. The majority of delegates will just be people who can get stuff done or who know people. When you require they abide by a constitution you could have difficulty in the future recruiting Democrats for example to become delegates. It's not worth it.

The only universal principles we might have should be outlined not now but after we have enough people and a voting history from Bitshares VOTE that we can actually try to say what we believe in based on some data.

Constitution should be no more than 4 sentences


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think the constitution should be based on the code AND the data collected from voting patterns.
It should not be dictated by early adopters who claim to have certain principles but it should be something which can be quantified. For example if we believe in open source and transparency then you can look at the data and see for a fact it is true. If we talk about principles like liberty, property rights and so on, that is going to bring all the useless political debates politicians have to our community which doesn't even advance anything.

Clearly we have principles and we know what Bytemaster thinks, but we don't need to make people pledge allegiance because I think that is very bad. The only thing people have to see is the source code and whatever principles people want to learn about early adopters they can learn from blogs or our public communications.
« Last Edit: November 01, 2014, 04:39:51 am by luckybit »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline carpet ride

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 544
    • View Profile
Constitution should be no more than 4 sentences


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
All opinions are my own. Anything said on this forum does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation between myself and anyone else.
Check out my blog: http://CertainAssets.com
Buy the ticket, take the ride.

Offline Brent.Allsop

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 242
    • View Profile
    • Canonizer.com
<sarcasm on>

Oh, darn, you guys are so smart and able to see through the plot of the Mornons and the Transhumanists, (I am their stooge puppet) to take over the world.  Once you guys sign up with Canonizer.com, a transhumanist pair of missionary from the LDS church will show up at your door, and they will be expecting 10% of your bitshares and income and also expect you to start hating Gays and so on.  And if you don’t the avenging angels will arrive, shortly thereafter.

</sarcasm off>

If nobody is thinking anything like the above, what, exactly are you afraid of?  You guys seem to be acting worse than so many of my Mormon friends that think all you Atheists really believe in, and in fact have been visited by....   SATAN!  So, no the Mormons are to afraid to go there.

The only agenda, is to first do the work required, so we can know, concisely and quantitatively, what everyone else wants.  Our theoretical testable prediction is that Peacefully getting at all for everyone, will be easy, after that.


The only reason the Mormon Transhumanist Association is listed in the sponsor section, is because they have used this a bit, in their operations, and support the general idea.  Nothing more.  Oh, and by the way, the Mormon Transhumanist Association has nothing to do with the organized “Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints”, and there is only a minority of membership that is a fully believing member of the LDS church.  If you must know, I consider myself to be a "Bitshare holding, Mormon Transhumanist Atheist", so more an anti Mormon, than any other type of Mormon you may know.  If you Google a bit, you'll find out how much of an Anti Mormon I really am.

I’ve requested permission to include the Bitshares organization, ahead of the MTA, in the sponsor section, but so far haven’t heard an official OK to do that.

« Last Edit: November 01, 2014, 04:51:17 am by Brent.Allsop »

Offline Thom

I'm not keen on either belief system or ideology.
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere - MLK |  Verbaltech2 Witness Reports: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,23902.0.html

Offline Ander

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3506
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Ander
You make some excellent points, but for various reasons you're encountering resistance in this community to using canonizer.com. For me personally I dislike the trans-humanist involvement

I find this pretty humorous, for me I disliked the mormon involvement!  :P

"Mormon transhumanist association" seem like a very tiny intersection on a Venn Diagram.

https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads