proposal to restrict voting numbers for committee members

[Ben Mason]

I think the only way to address the issue bitcrab has raised that doesn't change the expectations of current network participants, negatively effecting the network at a time when consolidation and growth are the most important factors is...

We increase the expectation of transparency and become more mindful of suitability characteristics of those wishing to hold a committee position. Whenever a parameter change is put forward, we must increase the amount of empirical reasoning behind it's effects in order to bring the maximum number of participants to a position of objective support.  That goes especially for a change that brings short term pain for longer term gain.

If we succeed in the above, then assuming a large stake holder wishes to make a change that works against the network or majority and has voted for committee members believing they will put his interests first, there will be checks and balances that minimize the likelihood such a strategy will be successful.  This is similar to the peer review of blockchain code.  Intentional, exploitable flaws are revealed.

[lovejoy]

^^ Thanks @abit ... I'm also trying to comprehend the various lines if thinking here... It's like a full time job in and of itself. 

[abit]

I'd like to bump this thread as someone who didn't agree with bitcrab in the past is now trying to follow bitcrab's ideas.

[gamey]

I am still not sure this idea addresses the problem it attempts to overcome.  I think it is just a matter of moving around numbers, but I am too lazy to try to prove it to myself. I was hoping someone could explain it to me a bit better...

Simple calculation here:
Assume that there are 100 committee member positions, and overall 100 stakes distributed to 100 holders (and many others have 0 stake)
* if one stake can be voted to only one member, then who owns 51 stakes would be able to vote in at most 51 members;
* if one stake can be voted to 100 members, then who owns 51 stakes would be able to vote in all 100 members.

I guess you are right. It still seems wrong to me. Perhaps what is bothering me is that even if you keep the 51% stake holder from voting in every committee member, they still can vote in 51% of the committee members by redistributing their stake. Although I guess this proposal is an improvement, it doesn't fix the problem of inactive voters.

[abit]

Silence in DPOS does not mean consent. Otherwise the share price would have risen on the back of the merger and various 'value adding' dilutionary activities. In DPOS dissent is expressed through selling. http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bitshares/#charts

Good point.

[abit]

I am still not sure this idea addresses the problem it attempts to overcome.  I think it is just a matter of moving around numbers, but I am too lazy to try to prove it to myself. I was hoping someone could explain it to me a bit better...

Simple calculation here:
Assume that there are 100 committee member positions, and overall 100 stakes distributed to 100 holders (and many others have 0 stake)
* if one stake can be voted to only one member, then who owns 51 stakes would be able to vote in at most 51 members;
* if one stake can be voted to 100 members, then who owns 51 stakes would be able to vote in all 100 members.

I will say that restricting voting is better in human ability terms. By this I mean that by not being able to vote on multiple committee members, you are reducing the time burden required to vote.  One only has to research one committee member versus creating a list. Maybe this factor is more important than the objective outlined in the original post?

Perhaps reduce voting to one member, then let the member distribute their excess votes?

[gamey]

I am still not sure this idea addresses the problem it attempts to overcome.  I think it is just a matter of moving around numbers, but I am too lazy to try to prove it to myself. I was hoping someone could explain it to me a bit better...

I will say that restricting voting is better in human ability terms. By this I mean that by not being able to vote on multiple committee members, you are reducing the time burden required to vote.  One only has to research one committee member versus creating a list. Maybe this factor is more important than the objective outlined in the original post?

Perhaps reduce voting to one member, then let the member distribute their excess votes?

[Empirical1.2]

The objectives of a centralized company and a decentralized one are vastly different.

A decentralized company seeks to decentralize control so that no bad actor or large shareholder with a fairly small amount of stake (Who could be compromised) is able to dictate events.

Silence in DPOS does not mean consent. Otherwise the share price would have risen on the back of the merger and various 'value adding' dilutionary activities. In DPOS dissent is expressed through selling. http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bitshares/#charts

BitShares was one of the worst 2015 performers (possibly the worst among top 10-15?) partly on the back of this flawed thinking.

Unless you're the first mover, monopoly crypto like Bitcoin, market percetion of the D in DAC is very important. Considering BitShares has thus far only been able to do blockchain based improvements via CNX and they also largely have voting control, BitShares is largely viewed as centralized. (Mainly CNX representatives tend to disagree...)

So I'm generally in favour of measures that encourage more voting and that don't allow a single actor/group to control the DAC as unlike a centralized company, actual, not theoretical decentralization of control adds value to a DAC imo.

This is also why a DAC attempts to be more decentralized from the outset than a centralized counterpart would be in terms of ownership.

The downside of this is that the main entrepreneurs/developers will be putting in more relative effort which creates group trap, so it's important to invest in entrepreneurs who understand this and have a passion & purpose that transcends this.

[Samupaha]

The point of DAC is not decentralization, the point is to make profits. To take care of the profitability we need somebody to make good decisions on blockchain parameters. This is what committee is for. It is not very reasonable to do decentralization just because decentralization. You have to always justify it.

DAC surely should be dencentralized, otherwise it should not be named DAC,

Decentralization in the word DAC stands mostly for the existence of the company. DAC is a company that exists as code that is run in several computers around the world. There is no central place where the DAC is located. This is very good reason for decentralization because it makes the company very secure. It will be very difficult for anybody to stop the company. Even if several of the computers where a DAC is running are destroyed, a DAC can continue it's existence on other computers and new ones are easy to set up.

actually in my view currently Bitshares 2.0 is more like a country than a company, because its revenue comes from the fees paid by the shareholders, in another word, more exactly the fees can be called tax.

for a company, normally the more revenue, the better, but this is not the case for a country. high revenue of a country often means high tax rate, and high burden of the people. these all always deactivate the economy.

Shareholders are not requied to pay anything. A fee for voting is closest to a tax, but even that is very low at the moment. If a shareholder pays something, it's because he is in the role of a customer, he is using the services that Bitshares provides.

If you want Bitshares to be a country, that would probably mean that Bitshares focuses on producing services only for it's shareholders. It will be very difficult to be profitable then. That would mean we stop trying to attract paying customers and pay everything ourselves.

In my view Bitshares is and should be a company. The point is to make money by offering high quality services for our customers, that will bring revenue and make BTS price go up.

[Stan]

If a company has a billion shareholders each with one share and they all vote for the same people, is it not still decentralized (because they had the option to vote differently)?

If all but one of those shareholders chooses not to vote, thereby allowing the last shareholder to select the committee all by herself, is it not still decentralized (because they still had the option to vote)?

As long as each share has the decentralized option to vote, that's all we can and should do about decentralization.

To do otherwise is to disenfranchise those who choose to vote in an attempt to redistribute their legitimately owned decision power onto others who don't want or deserve it.

Forced decentralization is its own form of tyranny.

this is not forced decentralization, this is seeking more reasonable voting rules.

think of  the US election, 2 senators for each state,  representatives numbers proportional to population, according to your logic, is the senator voting logic deprive the power of the people from the state with more population?

maybe you can say that, but the point is that the designers are seeking some balance, follow the population based logic and meanwhile prevent "Tyranny of Majority" .

we now obviously need to prevent "Tyranny of Dictator", we need to design the rule accordingly. it may deprive the power of one account to control the whole committee, but this is necessary.

Yes, those rules were the American Founders attempt to reach a compromise that enough people would sign onto to form a country.

But a company that want's to attract capital must treat each quantum of capital equally - or that capital will flee.

It doesn't matter who owns each quantum.   An investor purchases some percentage of shares to have that percentage of control and earnings.

Shares are property.  Their attributes (control and earnings) give those shares value.  When you meddle with the attributes of a share after the fact you are redistributing that value.  Can the majority vote to redistribute the value I thought I was buying when I acquired my shares?

[Thom]

Ho does this help AT ALL?
If you only allow to vote for 3 witnesses, then we have 3 witnesses from china, 3 from europe and 3 from the US. all of them will have LESS votes and will be easier to overtake

not easier than now, because each people's voting power will decrease.
diversify will help a global DAC,

The point of DAC is not decentralization, the point is to make profits. To take care of the profitability we need somebody to make good decisions on blockchain parameters. This is what committee is for. It is not very reasonable to do decentralization just because decentralization. You have to always justify it.

DAC surely should be dencentralized, otherwise it should not be named DAC,

actually in my view currently Bitshares 2.0 is more like a country than a company, because its revenue comes from the fees paid by the shareholders, in another word, more exactly the fees can be called tax.

for a company, normally the more revenue, the better, but this is not the case for a country. high revenue of a country often means high tax rate, and high burden of the people. these all always deactivate the economy.

at first Bitshares announced to be a decentralized autonomous company, but up to now it is not really decentralized yet, we need to improve further, we need to keep updating the management infrastructure to what we really needed,  but anyway decentralization is needed. as a company, we should not put the company under the control of CEO himself. the CEO should report to the board and work under the supervision of the board.

If a company has a billion shareholders each with one share and they all vote for the same people, is it not still decentralized (because they had the option to vote differently)?

If all but one of those shareholders chooses not to vote, thereby allowing the last shareholder to select the committee all by herself, is it not still decentralized (because they still had the option to vote)?

As long as each share has the decentralized option to vote, that's all we can and should do about decentralization.

To do otherwise is to disenfranchise those who choose to vote in an attempt to redistribute their legitimately owned decision power onto others who don't want or deserve it.

Forced decentralization is its own form of tyranny.

^^^^This - puts it in the proper perspective. Thanks Stan for stepping in here to enlighten those who don't quite get the point of self governance. It's not about making the playing field "equal for all" but rather "earned strength". The only fairness that needs rules to enforce is fair for everyone to earn his standing (ability to earn shares based on their own efforts).

[bitcrab]

If a company has a billion shareholders each with one share and they all vote for the same people, is it not still decentralized (because they had the option to vote differently)?

If all but one of those shareholders chooses not to vote, thereby allowing the last shareholder to select the committee all by herself, is it not still decentralized (because they still had the option to vote)?

As long as each share has the decentralized option to vote, that's all we can and should do about decentralization.

To do otherwise is to disenfranchise those who choose to vote in an attempt to redistribute their legitimately owned decision power onto others who don't want or deserve it.

Forced decentralization is its own form of tyranny.

this is not forced decentralization, this is seeking more reasonable voting rules.

think of  the US election, 2 senators for each state,  representatives numbers proportional to population, according to your logic, is the senator voting logic deprive the power of the people from the state with more population?

maybe you can say that, but the point is that the designers are seeking some balance, follow the population based logic and meanwhile prevent "Tyranny of Majority" .

we now obviously need to prevent "Tyranny of Dictator", we need to design the rule accordingly. it may deprive the power of one account to control the whole committee, but this is necessary.

[abit]

Ho does this help AT ALL?
If you only allow to vote for 3 witnesses, then we have 3 witnesses from china, 3 from europe and 3 from the US. all of them will have LESS votes and will be easier to overtake

not easier than now, because each people's voting power will decrease.
diversify will help a global DAC,

The point of DAC is not decentralization, the point is to make profits. To take care of the profitability we need somebody to make good decisions on blockchain parameters. This is what committee is for. It is not very reasonable to do decentralization just because decentralization. You have to always justify it.

DAC surely should be dencentralized, otherwise it should not be named DAC,

actually in my view currently Bitshares 2.0 is more like a country than a company, because its revenue comes from the fees paid by the shareholders, in another word, more exactly the fees can be called tax.

A person who only owns bitUSD is a user, not a shareholder. Make more use of the 'products' but not the 'shares' would let the platform look more like a company.

for a company, normally the more revenue, the better, but this is not the case for a country. high revenue of a country often means high tax rate, and high burden of the people. these all always deactivate the economy.

at first Bitshares announced to be a decentralized autonomous company, but up to now it is not really decentralized yet, we need to improve further, we need to keep updating the management infrastructure to what we really needed,  but anyway decentralization is needed. as a company, we should not put the company under the control of CEO himself. the CEO should report to the board and work under the supervision of the board.

Is the committee in BitShares purposed to be something like the board in a company? I'm not sure.

[Stan]

Ho does this help AT ALL?
If you only allow to vote for 3 witnesses, then we have 3 witnesses from china, 3 from europe and 3 from the US. all of them will have LESS votes and will be easier to overtake

not easier than now, because each people's voting power will decrease.
diversify will help a global DAC,

The point of DAC is not decentralization, the point is to make profits. To take care of the profitability we need somebody to make good decisions on blockchain parameters. This is what committee is for. It is not very reasonable to do decentralization just because decentralization. You have to always justify it.

DAC surely should be dencentralized, otherwise it should not be named DAC,

actually in my view currently Bitshares 2.0 is more like a country than a company, because its revenue comes from the fees paid by the shareholders, in another word, more exactly the fees can be called tax.

for a company, normally the more revenue, the better, but this is not the case for a country. high revenue of a country often means high tax rate, and high burden of the people. these all always deactivate the economy.

at first Bitshares announced to be a decentralized autonomous company, but up to now it is not really decentralized yet, we need to improve further, we need to keep updating the management infrastructure to what we really needed,  but anyway decentralization is needed. as a company, we should not put the company under the control of CEO himself. the CEO should report to the board and work under the supervision of the board.

If a company has a billion shareholders each with one share and they all vote for the same people, is it not still decentralized (because they had the option to vote differently)?

If all but one of those shareholders chooses not to vote, thereby allowing the last shareholder to select the committee all by herself, is it not still decentralized (because they still had the option to vote)?

As long as each share has the decentralized option to vote, that's all we can and should do about decentralization.

To do otherwise is to disenfranchise those who choose to vote in an attempt to redistribute their legitimately owned decision power onto others who don't want or deserve it.

Forced decentralization is its own form of tyranny.

[bitcrab]

Ho does this help AT ALL?
If you only allow to vote for 3 witnesses, then we have 3 witnesses from china, 3 from europe and 3 from the US. all of them will have LESS votes and will be easier to overtake

not easier than now, because each people's voting power will decrease.
diversify will help a global DAC,

The point of DAC is not decentralization, the point is to make profits. To take care of the profitability we need somebody to make good decisions on blockchain parameters. This is what committee is for. It is not very reasonable to do decentralization just because decentralization. You have to always justify it.

DAC surely should be dencentralized, otherwise it should not be named DAC,

actually in my view currently Bitshares 2.0 is more like a country than a company, because its revenue comes from the fees paid by the shareholders, in another word, more exactly the fees can be called tax.

for a company, normally the more revenue, the better, but this is not the case for a country. high revenue of a country often means high tax rate, and high burden of the people. these all always deactivate the economy.

at first Bitshares announced to be a decentralized autonomous company, but up to now it is not really decentralized yet, we need to improve further, we need to keep updating the management infrastructure to what we really needed,  but anyway decentralization is needed. as a company, we should not put the company under the control of CEO himself. the CEO should report to the board and work under the supervision of the board.