Delegating Votes

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

This is true in any corporation. I can get myself and a slate of friends voted on to the board of IBM then tank the company. It's much easier to do with lower valuation, as anyone can buy up a sizable stake and take over. Of course, that meant they just bought the company they intend to destroy...

Yes, but in a corporation there is no anonymity and there are high levels trust and accountability. If you try to apply the same principles to an anonymous environment you invite problems.

I don't think that standard is going to last very long with 2.0.. I think we are going to see a new standard set for delegates where anonymity is not an option anymore.

I don't know if you mean delegates specifically or generally. We were discussing a similar sentiment for witnesses, and I don't believe we need to tie real world ID to witnesses or workers. I take a different view towards delegates however. The reason for the distinction is in the nature of the role. For delegates it is much more broad in it's scope and thus I would argue in it's power. Workers and delegates have a much narrower function definition. However, I am open to it not being mandatory for any of the elected positions.

I actually believe the network is more secure without a real world identity on all of the people that contribute to security.

It concerns me greatly when I hear this being discussed, b/c it tells me people have not learned from the mistakes made in the past.

What is essential to know about  witnesses is how well they do their job. Their reputation and expertise is key. Reliability, understanding what to do to keep a node producing blocks, how to switch over to a redundant server if theirs is compromised and having a clear picture of where in  the world witnesses operate. They need to maintain communication with other witnesses to stay informed and defend against attackers, such as DDOS.

If they do that well and do so consistently I could care less what their real name or residence address is. Making that info public just exposes witnesses to unnecessary risk under the mistaken guise of "Safety & Security". It totally reminds me of the montra I hear from the mainstream media used to justify all kinds of tyrannical "laws" like the Patriot Act. "You need to give us the power to spy on you in case a terrorist tries to do something harmful to you" - - please! What about the harm you can count on the gov to do to you if you give your blind obedience to their agents?

People need to develop a defensive posture towards the gov rather than a posture of blind submission to unjust / unconstitutional / arbitrary rules & regulations that inflict violence and coercion on people, that extend the empire of evil and war. Just stop it already! Stop participating, stop helping it stop being ignorant of the importance of these things.

There is just one word, accountability.

Do you think any person takes comfort in knowing their money is being handled in any way by at least a portion of people or organizations that they do not really know?

Having unknowns whom we are trusting to be witnesses, which give them a vector for manipulation, with no real identification, make them perfect targets for the kind of manipulation that was mentioned in this thread as a vector of attack.

If we are going to go from being peeing puppies to big dogs, we got to at least get away from hiding behind a computer monitor. My comment was about the entire ecosystem.. with big money is going to come bigger competition and higher level organizations that will provide far more confidence not just to voters, but to prospective new users of the system.

To put it simply for example.. witness Freedom9328 - tech geek is one of our transaction handlers.. we don't know who he really is or where he is at, but we will trust him with the network .. kinda the way it is now.. isn't going to cut it. It's more likely at least a publicly verifiable corp at least will want to be seen.. I am not talking about how things will start.. I am talking about how things will evolve. I believe 2.0 is going to start off in a similar form to how we currently are.

Again.. it comes down to accountability.. and when you don't know who you are doing business with, when the chips are down, there is none.

[Thom]

This is true in any corporation. I can get myself and a slate of friends voted on to the board of IBM then tank the company. It's much easier to do with lower valuation, as anyone can buy up a sizable stake and take over. Of course, that meant they just bought the company they intend to destroy...

Yes, but in a corporation there is no anonymity and there are high levels trust and accountability. If you try to apply the same principles to an anonymous environment you invite problems.

I don't think that standard is going to last very long with 2.0.. I think we are going to see a new standard set for delegates where anonymity is not an option anymore.

I don't know if you mean delegates specifically or generally. We were discussing a similar sentiment for witnesses, and I don't believe we need to tie real world ID to witnesses or workers. I take a different view towards delegates however. The reason for the distinction is in the nature of the role. For delegates it is much more broad in it's scope and thus I would argue in it's power. Workers and delegates have a much narrower function definition. However, I am open to it not being mandatory for any of the elected positions.

I actually believe the network is more secure without a real world identity on all of the people that contribute to security.

It concerns me greatly when I hear this being discussed, b/c it tells me people have not learned from the mistakes made in the past.

What is essential to know about  witnesses is how well they do their job. Their reputation and expertise is key. Reliability, understanding what to do to keep a node producing blocks, how to switch over to a redundant server if theirs is compromised and having a clear picture of where in  the world witnesses operate. They need to maintain communication with other witnesses to stay informed and defend against attackers, such as DDOS.

If they do that well and do so consistently I could care less what their real name or residence address is. Making that info public just exposes witnesses to unnecessary risk under the mistaken guise of "Safety & Security". It totally reminds me of the montra I hear from the mainstream media used to justify all kinds of tyrannical "laws" like the Patriot Act. "You need to give us the power to spy on you in case a terrorist tries to do something harmful to you" - - please! What about the harm you can count on the gov to do to you if you give your blind obedience to their agents?

People need to develop a defensive posture towards the gov rather than a posture of blind submission to unjust / unconstitutional / arbitrary rules & regulations that inflict violence and coercion on people, that extend the empire of evil and war. Just stop it already! Stop participating, stop helping it stop being ignorant of the importance of these things.

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

This is true in any corporation. I can get myself and a slate of friends voted on to the board of IBM then tank the company. It's much easier to do with lower valuation, as anyone can buy up a sizable stake and take over. Of course, that meant they just bought the company they intend to destroy...

Yes, but in a corporation there is no anonymity and there are high levels trust and accountability. If you try to apply the same principles to an anonymous environment you invite problems.

I don't think that standard is going to last very long with 2.0.. I think we are going to see a new standard set for delegates where anonymity is not an option anymore.

[rgcrypto]

I personally think that it should not be mandatory to have a "representative" but really as an option.

For example, I could trust @datasecuritynode with my votes because I know he keeps his nose to the grindstone and he is very aware of the health of the network in general on a day to day basis.

If for any reasons, I do not agree with his judgement, I could take it back or change some of the vote he did for me.

Now, it would be dangerous for 5 or 6 "professional" representative to come out and manage the votes for the network. But if anyone could appoint anyone then I don't think it is too big of a risk.

 

[monsterer]

This is true in any corporation. I can get myself and a slate of friends voted on to the board of IBM then tank the company. It's much easier to do with lower valuation, as anyone can buy up a sizable stake and take over. Of course, that meant they just bought the company they intend to destroy...

Yes, but in a corporation there is no anonymity and there are high levels trust and accountability. If you try to apply the same principles to an anonymous environment you invite problems.

[rgcrypto]

Point of caution: this idea is vulnerable to a social engineering attack.

Kinda like you and the other 35 100%'ers.

Shill attack. Hope you get paid well.

[Ander]

Point of caution: this idea is vulnerable to a social engineering attack. The attacker convinces large stake holder(s) to delegate their voting power to them, and then uses that power to cause network damage.

I agree, its too risky.  Better to have it take a bit longer to vote people in or out, than to give too much power to one person.

[maqifrnswa]

Point of caution: this idea is vulnerable to a social engineering attack. The attacker convinces large stake holder(s) to delegate their voting power to them, and then uses that power to cause network damage.

This is true in any corporation. I can get myself and a slate of friends voted on to the board of IBM then tank the company. It's much easier to do with lower valuation, as anyone can buy up a sizable stake and take over. Of course, that meant they just bought the company they intend to destroy...

[NewMine]

Point of caution: this idea is vulnerable to a social engineering attack.

Kinda like you and the other 35 100%'ers.

[monsterer]

Point of caution: this idea is vulnerable to a social engineering attack. The attacker convinces large stake holder(s) to delegate their voting power to them, and then uses that power to cause network damage.

[xeroc]

I seem to vaguely recall something about the capability of witnesses to 'resign' as well? So in cases like galt they could just send a notification of resignation and out they go and in goes the next standby.

https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/143

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

I think @Riverhead is right as far as more liquidity users making an impact is concerned.

I seem to vaguely recall something about the capability of witnesses to 'resign' as well? So in cases like galt they could just send a notification of resignation and out they go and in goes the next standby.

[xeroc]

afaik in bts2 you can hand over voting power to someone else, too

How? With multi sig?

IIRC it's as simple as telling the network/blockchain ...

Code: [Select]

All stake in <account> can be used for voting by <account>


[rgcrypto]

afaik in bts2 you can hand over voting power to someone else, too

How? With multi sig?

[cass]

Voting someone out can take a while because between the time a bad actor(or incompetent actor) present itself and the time for people to get off their butts to take action, 2 weeks can go by before consensus happen.

As i have noticed on @DataSecurityNode Voting Galt out post .. Voting out process consumes much more time to take effect .