Author Topic: [ SNAPSHOT: 8/21 ] VOTE  (Read 26557 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Ggozzo

  • Guest
I don't get the business model, why should we except people will want to pay to vote?

Not only that, but how do you control the jurisdictions?

Offline bytemaster

Elections can be sponsored there are costs for voting and someone has to pay for it even in real elections.   


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
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 yinchanggong

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 464
    • View Profile
    • 微博 引长弓Fate
I don't get the business model, why should we except people will want to pay to vote?
I have this doubt too.

来自我的 M353 上的 Tapatalk

BTSX delegate: google.helloworld    microsoft.helloworld
BTSX Account:yinchg   Manager of BTSXCHINA Charity Fund
引长弓Fate 新浪微博

Offline BldSwtTrs

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 220
    • View Profile
I don't get the business model, why should we except people will want to pay to vote?

Offline cass

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4311
  • /(┬.┬)\
    • View Profile
wow just a few days off .. great to see new DACS bumping up :)+5%
█║▌║║█  - - -  The quieter you become, the more you are able to hear  - - -  █║▌║║█

Offline hadrian

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 467
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: hadrian

...In the near future, Follow My Vote will releasing the first voting DAC...

...NuSpark is a startup incubator in Blacksburg, VA, that has supported Follow My Vote in since their early stages of development...

"will releasing" should be "will be releasing".

"in since their early stages" should be "since their early stages"
« Last Edit: August 02, 2014, 05:59:25 pm by hadrian »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline Avant

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 78
    • View Profile
PTS: PvhU2D9ViKygoBQTgh9zeKuFTqi8j3TRjy
BTS: avanty

38PTSWarrior

  • Guest
I'm still happy!  +5%

Offline CLains

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2606
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: clains
« Last Edit: August 02, 2014, 03:17:15 pm by CLains »

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12922
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc

Offline Ben Mason

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1070
  • Integrity & Innovation, powered by Bitshares
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: benjojo
 +5% +5% this DAC send a shiver up my spine.....can you say 'game changer' five times fast?! ;D

Offline alt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2821
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: baozi

Offline dexinwong

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 232
    • View Profile

Offline arhag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
    • My posts on Steem
  • BitShares: arhag
  • GitHub: arhag
 +5%

A few comments on the whitepaper:
  • I think it should be made clear in the whitepaper that account verifiers not only need to verify the demographic credentials of a user's account, but they also need to make sure that the account belongs to a user that has not already been counted. The paper explicitly mentions how the DAC does not allow a single user account to request multiple ballots for a particular election and how this prevents voting more than once in an election. But that assumes that the user cannot create another account for which he gets its demographic credentials verified again. Thus, to actual prevent multiple votes in an election, each account verifier needs to keep track of all the human beings they already verified and make sure before verifying another account that an account does not belong to a person that they already verified.

  • It would be nice if the whitepaper went into a little bit of detail on how the zerocoin technology provides anonymity so that user's known accounts are not linked with their votes. I'm thinking metaphors not the actual cryptography/mathematics.

  • I think another point that can be added to the list of benefits is flexibility in voting method. As far as I see it the VOTE DAC blockchain and network should be agnostic to the actual contents of the ballot. Anyone going through the public vote record on the blockchain who understands the rules of the election can independently determine whether a particular ballot is malformed, voting for a nonexistent candidate, or otherwise not appropriate for inclusion in the election. This allows the clients to be updated to create and interpret any future format of a ballot desired. We could have plugins added to client for all kinds of voting methods (first-past-the-post, approval, instant runoff, reweighted range voting, etc.). In fact, in order to reduce blockchain bloat, I think it would make sense to just include the hash of the ballot on the blockchain and allow anonymous uploading of the contents of a ballot on some other server.

Offline cgafeng

BTC:1EYwcZ9cYVj6C9LMLafdcjK9wicVMDV376