Author [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] Topic: BTS Governance step 1: Basic stake polling  (Read 1660 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline toast

BTS Governance step 1: Basic stake polling
« on: November 01, 2014, 07:39:49 PM »

The BTS blockchain is used to secure one consensus measure: percent ownership. The only purpose of a "constitution" is to define an initial social consensus to let stakeholders self-select into it. BTS ownership is already well-defined but its goals are not clear yet. Once a DAC is being traded, the will of its majority stakeholders can change and that will change the actions of the DAC. You can choose to still claim there's a constitution to help explain what the expected behavior of the DAC is based on its current shareholders, but the technology does not recognize it.

The blockchain can be used to document decisions about stakeholder intent that becomes impossible to muddle in the future. Once we get things figured out using off-chain systems that don't require core dev time, we can move more governance functions into the actual BTS client.

It would be good if a dev could do this:

1) Take daily BTS snapshots to obtain a map from address to amount
2) Make a curated list of issues. Request a signature on (issue_id, decision) for each balance from users. A utility to create these signatures in bulk in a standard format is needed.
3) Keep a running total of votes for each issue, allowing people to change the vote of a balance during the day.
4) Test actively, and start using it to make real decisions to force stakeholder engagement

Once this is in place we can start refining how the will of BTS leader+whale hivemind can be computed
Do not use this post as information for making any important decisions. The only agreements I ever make are informal and non-binding. Take the same precautions as when dealing with a compromised account, scammer, sockpuppet, etc.

Offline fluxer555

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 661
    • View Profile
Re: BTS Governance step 1: Basic stake polling
« Reply #1 on: November 01, 2014, 07:49:40 PM »
Idea:

A Chrome extension that automatically scans any page from bitsharestalk.org for some standard-syntax issue_ID and pops up with a little thing on the side asking for your decision. This plugs into your RPC client and sends off the vote.
BTS: boolean-julien

Offline toast

Re: BTS Governance step 1: Basic stake polling
« Reply #2 on: November 01, 2014, 07:51:40 PM »
I was thinking more like a simple web app + python script for now, something crude you could make fast
Do not use this post as information for making any important decisions. The only agreements I ever make are informal and non-binding. Take the same precautions as when dealing with a compromised account, scammer, sockpuppet, etc.

Offline roadscape

Re: BTS Governance step 1: Basic stake polling
« Reply #3 on: November 01, 2014, 07:55:45 PM »
I was thinking more like a simple web app + python script for now, something crude you could make fast

I'm interested. Sounds like a good learning project.

What's a good way to preserve anonymity when a signed vote is submitted? Other than not recording IP addresses..
http://cryptofresh.com  |  witness: roadscape

Offline toast

Re: BTS Governance step 1: Basic stake polling
« Reply #4 on: November 01, 2014, 08:03:53 PM »
There's not a quick and easy way to prevent people form being able to group balances together. There's some analysis you can't avoid just by the nature of stake-vote.
Do not use this post as information for making any important decisions. The only agreements I ever make are informal and non-binding. Take the same precautions as when dealing with a compromised account, scammer, sockpuppet, etc.

Offline Rune

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1120
    • View Profile
Re: BTS Governance step 1: Basic stake polling
« Reply #5 on: November 01, 2014, 08:13:00 PM »
I think the easiest way to do this would to have proxy delegates for an issue you want to stake poll.

So when you want to ask if e.g. dilution is good, then you make two delegates and put approval links in the post btsx:yes.dilution.proxyabc/approve and btsx:no.dilution.proxyabc/approve

Then it should be fairly easy to gauge stakeholder sentiment based on the votes the proxy delegates receive.

Offline matt608

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 878
    • View Profile
Re: BTS Governance step 1: Basic stake polling
« Reply #6 on: November 01, 2014, 08:13:30 PM »
I don't know how the VOTE daap will work, but isn't what your asking covered by its functions? 

Anti-constitution rant:
As for a constitution... I urge big changes to wait until voting is implemented.  'Constitution' is a very powerful word.  It's a founding document.  It's the core protocol of a society.  It means starting all over again.   In the spirit of not having more drastic changes, to create calmness and investor confidence, using such dramatic words like calling a temporary description of bitshares the 'constitution' needs to stop.

Once power is truly distributed among the stakeholders people can propose whatever they like and if a constitution is an idea that gains traction it may come into existence.

As of now, stakeholders have self-selected themselves into bitshares just fine, as well as into every other investment in the history of man kind without a constitution.  So I am against having one.  Constitutions are for governments, not corporations whether they a decentralised or not.  The only rule is there are no rules.  What is this 'constitution' if it doesn't have to be obeyed?  It's just a confusing document that will divide the community.  I say voting is for choosing delegates, keep it modular.  Please do not create some monolithic and highly controversial document to alienate the current investors.

People will describe bitshares in different ways.  There's no need for there to be the 'one true description'.  It's already an elegant system, more changes to the foundation are harmful - and creating a constitution is a foundational shift!  Delegates (and currently 3I) need a description to use for marketing, of course, but calling it a constitution implies it has supreme importance when in reality it's just sales copy.

Bitshares has an elegant system, what it needs is for the foundation to stop changing, it isn't adaptation, it's floundering.

Offline toast

Re: BTS Governance step 1: Basic stake polling
« Reply #7 on: November 01, 2014, 08:25:17 PM »
I think the easiest way to do this would to have proxy delegates for an issue you want to stake poll.

So when you want to ask if e.g. dilution is good, then you make two delegates and put approval links in the post btsx:yes.dilution.proxyabc/approve and btsx:no.dilution.proxyabc/approve

Then it should be fairly easy to gauge stakeholder sentiment based on the votes the proxy delegates receive.

That's a pretty good technique but you can't distinguish between active and inactive stake. You can only count active supporters and compare support for alternative ways to do things.
Do not use this post as information for making any important decisions. The only agreements I ever make are informal and non-binding. Take the same precautions as when dealing with a compromised account, scammer, sockpuppet, etc.

Offline Rune

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1120
    • View Profile
Re: BTS Governance step 1: Basic stake polling
« Reply #8 on: November 01, 2014, 08:34:11 PM »
I think the easiest way to do this would to have proxy delegates for an issue you want to stake poll.

So when you want to ask if e.g. dilution is good, then you make two delegates and put approval links in the post btsx:yes.dilution.proxyabc/approve and btsx:no.dilution.proxyabc/approve

Then it should be fairly easy to gauge stakeholder sentiment based on the votes the proxy delegates receive.

That's a pretty good technique but you can't distinguish between active and inactive stake. You can only count active supporters and compare support for alternative ways to do things.

Well you can compare with the current active delegates. If it becomes apparent that a proxy delegate is going to get voted in (or even is voted in and starts screwing with the block production temporarily), then I don't think it can plausibly be argued that there could be an active majority against the proposal.

But even at much smaller numbers just comparing with the lowest voted current active delegate should give a good picture of how much active support or objection an issue has, especially if you also compare the ratio of people voting for the yes proxy and the no proxy.
« Last Edit: November 01, 2014, 08:36:49 PM by Rune »

Offline toast

Re: BTS Governance step 1: Basic stake polling
« Reply #9 on: November 01, 2014, 08:39:09 PM »
I think the easiest way to do this would to have proxy delegates for an issue you want to stake poll.

So when you want to ask if e.g. dilution is good, then you make two delegates and put approval links in the post btsx:yes.dilution.proxyabc/approve and btsx:no.dilution.proxyabc/approve

Then it should be fairly easy to gauge stakeholder sentiment based on the votes the proxy delegates receive.

That's a pretty good technique but you can't distinguish between active and inactive stake. You can only count active supporters and compare support for alternative ways to do things.

Well you can compare with the current active delegates. If it becomes apparent that a proxy delegate is going to get voted in (or even is voted in and starts screwing with the block production temporarily), then I don't think it can plausibly be argued that there could be an active majority against the proposal.

But even at much smaller numbers just comparing with the lowest voted current active delegate should give a good picture of how much active support or objection an issue has, especially if you also compare the ratio of people voting for the yes proxy and the no proxy.

I would agree with you if the delegate list was full of no-policy at-cost delegates. Delegates are not a perfect substitute for proposal executives because "no action" delegate requires an operator.
Do not use this post as information for making any important decisions. The only agreements I ever make are informal and non-binding. Take the same precautions as when dealing with a compromised account, scammer, sockpuppet, etc.

Offline fluxer555

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 661
    • View Profile
Re: BTS Governance step 1: Basic stake polling
« Reply #10 on: November 01, 2014, 08:53:36 PM »
Perhaps we can have BM help with whatever servers the 'init' delegates are running on, to create new dummy delegates that will produce blocks just fine, that we can use for the purpose of voting for proposals.
« Last Edit: November 01, 2014, 08:57:32 PM by fluxer555 »
BTS: boolean-julien

Offline Rune

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1120
    • View Profile
Re: BTS Governance step 1: Basic stake polling
« Reply #11 on: November 01, 2014, 09:01:52 PM »
I think the easiest way to do this would to have proxy delegates for an issue you want to stake poll.

So when you want to ask if e.g. dilution is good, then you make two delegates and put approval links in the post btsx:yes.dilution.proxyabc/approve and btsx:no.dilution.proxyabc/approve

Then it should be fairly easy to gauge stakeholder sentiment based on the votes the proxy delegates receive.

That's a pretty good technique but you can't distinguish between active and inactive stake. You can only count active supporters and compare support for alternative ways to do things.

Well you can compare with the current active delegates. If it becomes apparent that a proxy delegate is going to get voted in (or even is voted in and starts screwing with the block production temporarily), then I don't think it can plausibly be argued that there could be an active majority against the proposal.

But even at much smaller numbers just comparing with the lowest voted current active delegate should give a good picture of how much active support or objection an issue has, especially if you also compare the ratio of people voting for the yes proxy and the no proxy.

I would agree with you if the delegate list was full of no-policy at-cost delegates. Delegates are not a perfect substitute for proposal executives because "no action" delegate requires an operator.

You mean a "no proxy" delegate requires someone to register it in the first place, and a guy with a proposal will register only the yes proxy delegate? If there is an active majority against the proposal then they will certainly move to campaign against it and create a proxy delegate against it if they observe its yes proxy getting too many votes. IMO the barriers of entry for doing this are so low it wouldn't require any special inbuilt support from the blockchain (at least in the short term). You don't have to actually install or run a delegate just to register one that people can vote for, right?

But even if it wasn't that easy for the opposition campaign to register a no proxy, I don't think anyone, delegates or stakeholders, would take a proposal seriously in the first place if it was initially presented with only the possibility for people to vote "yes". Even stakeholders that were strongly supporting it would find that kind of trickery ludicrous.

Offline Rune

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1120
    • View Profile
Re: BTS Governance step 1: Basic stake polling
« Reply #12 on: November 01, 2014, 09:05:23 PM »
Perhaps we can have BM help with whatever servers the 'init' delegates are running on, to create new dummy delegates that will produce blocks just fine, that we can use for the purpose of voting for proposals.

I actually like the idea that if a proxy delegate gets voted in it starts messing things up. This means that it can be used as a form of digital protest, if a large group of stakeholders feel they are being seriously mistreated. Obviously if it is not an issue that is very controversial then the supporters would never actually let it become a real delegate because they would be hurting their own investment. If both a yes proxy and a no proxy end up being really close to getting voted in, then that can serve as a signal that a "referendum" is needed with all stakeholders being pushed a notification asking them to vote on the issue through the hard fork voting system.

Offline roadscape

Re: BTS Governance step 1: Basic stake polling
« Reply #13 on: November 01, 2014, 09:09:29 PM »
This idea is a perfect for an off-the-blockchain app.

It's a stop-gap measure until VOTE, no need to change fundamentals.
http://cryptofresh.com  |  witness: roadscape

Offline toast

Re: BTS Governance step 1: Basic stake polling
« Reply #14 on: November 01, 2014, 09:09:42 PM »
I agree with everything you're saying, I'm just pointing out that if delegates are supposed to represent stakeholder intent then the fact that there are not explicit "no policy" delegates shows it is probably failing to really represent BTS holder desires. I suppose the init delegates played that role at the start, but not anymore.
Do not use this post as information for making any important decisions. The only agreements I ever make are informal and non-binding. Take the same precautions as when dealing with a compromised account, scammer, sockpuppet, etc.

 

Google+