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: Breaking down voting - Don't vote for happyshares / "pay back delegates"  (Read 1294 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline santaclause102

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2487
    • View Profile

More detailed explanation why we souldn't give "pay back delegates" a perspective right from the start is here https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=5868.msg78966#msg78966

Goals (arranged acc. to subjective importance, most important first):
(1) Minimizing the influence of (obviously) bad actors.
(2) Prevent centralization. Source for centralization https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=5775.0 There might be a free rider (group trap) problem depending on how high the tx fees are that you get back for voting for the giving back delegate. I think it is likely that people can not estimate how much they can loose (together with everyone else) in relation to what they gain and simply take the additional gain because it is the most obvious benefit. Then the free rider problem is there no matter what the estimate is approximately in reality. (2) is interrelated to (1) as a bad actor could use the pay bcak to voters scheme as a means to gain control. But decentralization also has benefits of it's own so it is an own own point.
(3) Maximum representation (= percentage of shares equals percentage of approved delegates).

Instruments / suggestions:
(a) delegation of votes (= your voting power is distributed among those you vote for)
(b) approval voting (= you can give as many delegates as you want (variant: only a limited amount of delegates) your approval, each approval vote has the same weight.
(c) negative votes (= vote against a delegates in style (a) or in style (b)). Variant (d): Negatives votes could be weighted more than the positive votes (e.g. 1 negative vote + 2 positive votes = 0). Variant (e): limit the amounts of negative votes in case negative votes are style (b) / via disapproval voting. 

Effects/propositions:
- (a) and (b) equally lead to (2) if people perception is that they gain more from voting for the delegates that pays out the most tx fees to his voters compared to his competing delegates and/or if the actually gain/looses estimate is in favor of such behavior.
- approval voting is better to minimize the influence of a potentially bad actor.
- In the end negative votes is the same as positive votes. Just the procedure is different. Right? (didn't think long about this)   

I don't know if "the give back to voters" attack can be prevented without a "social ban". I don't know a solution. Ask a game theory specialist...
« Last Edit: July 21, 2014, 09:16:06 AM by delulo »

Offline bytemaster

Re: Breaking down voting
« Reply #1 on: July 20, 2014, 06:00:44 PM »
Give back to the voters requires the delegates to actually produce blocks.

There is a large contingent of honest shareholders that will not approve of that kind of behavior. 

Profit margins will eventually squeeze out this kind of behavior (unless delegates are paid more than transaction fees)
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline santaclause102

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2487
    • View Profile
Re: Breaking down voting
« Reply #2 on: July 20, 2014, 10:45:04 PM »
Quote
Profit margins will eventually squeeze out this kind of behavior (unless delegates are paid more than transaction fees)
If somebody wanted to attack the network this would still be the cheapest option and the little loss through tx fees wouldnt matter. And the freerider problem exists anyway.

The freerider problem: Delegates can use the money for everybody (dividends, marketing, build the ecosystem) or they can pay it back to the voters. Shareholders can maximize their gains if they voted for the latter and everyone else would vote for the first. Also true: The gains are tiny compared to the losses / potential damage if everyone would vote this way. Let's hope people are aware of this enough.

Analogy to POW: A pool operator offering zero or even negative fees to bitcoin miners (paying bitcoin miners to mine with his pool) might gain 51% this way. The equivalent would be a pay back to voters "pool" that offers to pay back the whole reward (~ghash) respectively a tx fees + x for your vote delegate.

I think we should make it clear that "pay for votes" delegates have the potential to lead to centralization. Also everyone should be aware of the fact that the gains through tx fees are a fraction of the potential loss in share value due to a potential centralization.

If shareholders would all be short term shareholders and would have no social / idealistic motive this would be a problem.

Offline mf-tzo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1693
    • View Profile
Re: Breaking down voting
« Reply #3 on: July 20, 2014, 10:58:41 PM »
Quote
The freerider problem: Delegates can use the money for everybody (dividends, marketing, build the ecosystem) or they can pay it back to the voters. Shareholders can maximize their gains if they voted for the latter and everyone else would vote for the first.

Can you further elaborate on this? It might be obvious and it is very late and I am going to sleep but I think this discussion is important in order to avoid what you have described.

Offline santaclause102

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2487
    • View Profile
Re: Breaking down voting
« Reply #4 on: July 20, 2014, 11:45:21 PM »
Quote
The freerider problem: Delegates can use the money for everybody (dividends, marketing, build the ecosystem) or they can pay it back to the voters. Shareholders can maximize their gains if they voted for the latter and everyone else would vote for the first.

Can you further elaborate on this? It might be obvious and it is very late and I am going to sleep but I think this discussion is important in order to avoid what you have described.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
From the perspective of the individual shareholder that tries to maximize his benefit, the best (of all options) would be if (1) he approved as many delegates that give part or all of the delegate reward back as possible but (2) no other shareholder would act this way. Because then our shareholder has the best of two worlds: A stable and decentralized network which he profits from through a stable share price / an appreciation in share value. And he also has gotten the pay back from the "pay back delegates".
This is a freerider PROBLEM though because if everyone followed this rationale then the network would not be centralized anymore because shareholders would give all their votes to the one admin/provider of several delegates that pays back the most (in the long run this ends up being one delegate because of economies of scale if he needs to be profitable) or worse that is a bad actor that doesnt have to be profitable.

Freerider problems exist with all social interaction. And there are a few means to handle it (the below only partly applies to the specific problem above):
1) A centralized entity (state) that sets rules (forbidding behavior that endangers the common good). We all know the problems...
2) A "social ban" ~ traditions, cultural learned behavior that forbids behavior that endangers the common good. Difficult if the group gets to big and depends on the culture; no possibility to "hard code it".
3) Privatization: Doesn't really apply here. With other free rider problems (land or water resource used by everyone) privatization means to give the resource (that in many cases was not owned by anyone before; it has been a public good) to a private person or company. The private person/company then has an incentive to handle the resource with care. Disadvantage: Pressure of short term profit extraction (nowadays; financial markets...). And who should you give the resource to if it never was owned by anyONE?
4) Technical means. Then is is not a freerider problem anymore.
5) Love / Acting for a higher goal. Then there is no freerider problem either because the assumption (maximizing own (material) benefit) is not fulfilled.

Would it be technically possible to evade "pay back delegates"?

....I assume though that shareholders have enough collective intelligence to not vote for pay back delegates ("social ban").

Compared to POW there is less of a pressure to make a profit from pay back delegates. Miners have invested in their mining equipement and they are under pressure to make a profit from it. Also miners have not stake in the network, they don't care about the bitcoin price, with any POS shareholder who also directly or indirectly secure the network this is different.
« Last Edit: July 21, 2014, 09:14:20 AM by delulo »

Offline Simeon II

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 356
    • View Profile
Re: Breaking down voting
« Reply #5 on: July 20, 2014, 11:53:51 PM »

OK, I see you already found justification why most delegates charge 100% fees.

I have other/simpler explanation - GREED!

Offline santaclause102

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2487
    • View Profile
Re: Breaking down voting
« Reply #6 on: July 20, 2014, 11:57:35 PM »
OK, I see you already found justification why most delegates charge 100% fees.
I have other/simpler explanation - GREED!
I dont understand. Can you repeat in other words?

Offline Simeon II

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 356
    • View Profile
Re: Breaking down voting
« Reply #7 on: July 21, 2014, 12:04:23 AM »
Assuming $4/BTSX in a span of 1-1.5years, this delegate (singular) has made ~300*4= $1200 for a day. During time when there is NO actual trading (expect 5 to 5000 fold increase with trading).

 And he is doing what exactly ????

318   clout-delegate2                 3.9160652063 % 99       9        91.67 %       100 %    62.59274 BTSX       15281     
317   clout-delegate1                 3.9160650623 % 95       11       89.62 %       100 %    59.71459 BTSX       15260     
321   clout-delegate4                 3.9160650243 % 99       12       89.19 %       100 %    58.95391 BTSX       15334     
320   clout-delegate5                 3.9160650090 % 96       15       86.49 %       100 %    58.64804 BTSX       15287     
319   clout-delegate3                 3.9160647706 % 88       17       83.81 %       100 %    53.88070 BTSX       15253     



*No offence clout I am all for taking advantage of the opportunities when they present themselves.
« Last Edit: July 21, 2014, 12:10:39 AM by Simeon II »

Ggozzo

  • Guest
Re: Breaking down voting
« Reply #8 on: July 21, 2014, 12:52:30 AM »
Assuming $4/BTSX in a span of 1-1.5years, this delegate (singular) has made ~300*4= $1200 for a day. During time when there is NO actual trading (expect 5 to 5000 fold increase with trading).

 And he is doing what exactly ????

318   clout-delegate2                 3.9160652063 % 99       9        91.67 %       100 %    62.59274 BTSX       15281     
317   clout-delegate1                 3.9160650623 % 95       11       89.62 %       100 %    59.71459 BTSX       15260     
321   clout-delegate4                 3.9160650243 % 99       12       89.19 %       100 %    58.95391 BTSX       15334     
320   clout-delegate5                 3.9160650090 % 96       15       86.49 %       100 %    58.64804 BTSX       15287     
319   clout-delegate3                 3.9160647706 % 88       17       83.81 %       100 %    53.88070 BTSX       15253     



*No offence clout I am all for taking advantage of the opportunities when they present themselves.

Is that saying he made ~58 BTS per block? How many transactions?

Offline Simeon II

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 356
    • View Profile
Re: Breaking down voting
« Reply #9 on: July 21, 2014, 12:57:40 AM »
Assuming $4/BTSX in a span of 1-1.5years, this delegate (singular) has made ~300*4= $1200 for a day. During time when there is NO actual trading (expect 5 to 5000 fold increase with trading).

 And he is doing what exactly ????

318   clout-delegate2                 3.9160652063 % 99       9        91.67 %       100 %    62.59274 BTSX       15281     
317   clout-delegate1                 3.9160650623 % 95       11       89.62 %       100 %    59.71459 BTSX       15260     
321   clout-delegate4                 3.9160650243 % 99       12       89.19 %       100 %    58.95391 BTSX       15334     
320   clout-delegate5                 3.9160650090 % 96       15       86.49 %       100 %    58.64804 BTSX       15287     
319   clout-delegate3                 3.9160647706 % 88       17       83.81 %       100 %    53.88070 BTSX       15253     



*No offence clout I am all for taking advantage of the opportunities when they present themselves.

Is that saying he made ~58 BTS per block? How many transactions?

Have you heard about the humongous asset registration fees currently at 148,446.95040 BTSX.

You thought they go to shareholders right? No no no they go to DELEGATES!

Ggozzo

  • Guest
Re: Breaking down voting
« Reply #10 on: July 21, 2014, 01:09:37 AM »
Wow. So does it go to one lucky delegate who produces the block the registration fee is included in?

Offline toast

Re: Breaking down voting
« Reply #11 on: July 21, 2014, 01:10:25 AM »
Assuming $4/BTSX in a span of 1-1.5years, this delegate (singular) has made ~300*4= $1200 for a day. During time when there is NO actual trading (expect 5 to 5000 fold increase with trading).

 And he is doing what exactly ????

318   clout-delegate2                 3.9160652063 % 99       9        91.67 %       100 %    62.59274 BTSX       15281     
317   clout-delegate1                 3.9160650623 % 95       11       89.62 %       100 %    59.71459 BTSX       15260     
321   clout-delegate4                 3.9160650243 % 99       12       89.19 %       100 %    58.95391 BTSX       15334     
320   clout-delegate5                 3.9160650090 % 96       15       86.49 %       100 %    58.64804 BTSX       15287     
319   clout-delegate3                 3.9160647706 % 88       17       83.81 %       100 %    53.88070 BTSX       15253     



*No offence clout I am all for taking advantage of the opportunities when they present themselves.

Is that saying he made ~58 BTS per block? How many transactions?

Have you heard about the humongous asset registration fees currently at 148,446.95040 BTSX.

You thought they go to shareholders right? No no no they go to DELEGATES!

Dude... every single fee in the system "goes to delegates!!1", which can choose to burn them. Shareholders elect delegates that burn the proportion they want.
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 Simeon II

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 356
    • View Profile
Re: Breaking down voting
« Reply #12 on: July 21, 2014, 01:15:09 AM »
Assuming $4/BTSX in a span of 1-1.5years, this delegate (singular) has made ~300*4= $1200 for a day. During time when there is NO actual trading (expect 5 to 5000 fold increase with trading).

 And he is doing what exactly ????

318   clout-delegate2                 3.9160652063 % 99       9        91.67 %       100 %    62.59274 BTSX       15281     
317   clout-delegate1                 3.9160650623 % 95       11       89.62 %       100 %    59.71459 BTSX       15260     
321   clout-delegate4                 3.9160650243 % 99       12       89.19 %       100 %    58.95391 BTSX       15334     
320   clout-delegate5                 3.9160650090 % 96       15       86.49 %       100 %    58.64804 BTSX       15287     
319   clout-delegate3                 3.9160647706 % 88       17       83.81 %       100 %    53.88070 BTSX       15253     



*No offence clout I am all for taking advantage of the opportunities when they present themselves.

Is that saying he made ~58 BTS per block? How many transactions?

Have you heard about the humongous asset registration fees currently at 148,446.95040 BTSX.

You thought they go to shareholders right? No no no they go to DELEGATES!

Dude... every single fee in the system "goes to delegates!!1", which can choose to burn them. Shareholders elect delegates that burn the proportion they want.

Dude... you are smart enough to know this is stupid stupid stupid !

And tell me what is the current burn rate 1%, hardly?????

Offline Riverhead

Re: Breaking down voting
« Reply #13 on: July 21, 2014, 01:21:19 AM »

Dude... you are smart enough to know this is stupid stupid stupid !

And tell me what is the current burn rate 1%, hardly? ??? ?


The asset registration should slow down as price increases.  I can see maybe one or two assets a month being created....maybe...but most will just trade the standard Market assets.  Unless an asset is really compelling it's not worth the price to create it.  Also, I think there is a bit of a feeling of monopoly money right now as people got a seemingly high number of BTSX for their PTS.


Offline Simeon II

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 356
    • View Profile
Re: Breaking down voting
« Reply #14 on: July 21, 2014, 01:27:33 AM »

But when the market comes to life the transaction will increase manifold.

And the interface (as is now) encourages greedy delegates. Example – you have to go to the console to find actual fees for each delegate. So the lazy voters – read 75% of all voters – will just check the GUI data provided and eventually vote…

 

Google+