BitShares Forum

Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: Empirical1.1 on October 31, 2014, 08:31:13 pm

Title: A BitShares Constitution?
Post by: Empirical1.1 on October 31, 2014, 08:31:13 pm
We have a new, united BitShares beginning on Nov 5th.

We have an opportunity to define a new beginning about who we are and where we're going.
Whether that's a constitution, mission statement or just some basic values, I don't know.
(I think MethodX has previously expressed interest in helping draw up a draft for something like this.)

For me a big question is this...

Should BitShares define it's maximum annual dilution for eternity?

Personally, I think yes.

A BTS that is limited & defined like Bitcoin but puts the dilution towards positive, productive uses rather than wasteful centralised mining is something I think will be more successful.

Bytemaster, is open to that angle.

Its 2021:

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Controlled_supply

Great... an enshrined constitution that stipulates an dilution rate strictly less than BTC's inflation rate would "tie our hands" and should be carefully considered, but from a marketing perspective there is a strong case.

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10816.msg142543#msg142543

Do you think we should cap our dilution rate in a constitution forever? Other thoughts?


Title: Re: A BitShares Constitution?
Post by: Ander on October 31, 2014, 08:36:09 pm
This would be great, especially if the capped amounts were less than bitcoin's inflation over time. 

This could be achieved by having the max block reward for a paid delegate decrease over time, from 50 this year, to less in the future, similar to how bitcoin's block reward halves each 4 years.  (Ours doesnt have to have exactly the same schedule of decline).

I think this would help to calm down the investors who have been dumping because they dont like dilution, mostly because they dont understand how large it will be, and it seems to them that it could be any amount.
Title: Re: A BitShares Constitution?
Post by: Method-X on October 31, 2014, 08:39:33 pm
Interesting idea. I can see both sides of this discussion.

a) Fixed dilution limits future unknowns.
b) Fixed dilution gives investors peace of mind.

I can't decide.
Title: Re: A BitShares Constitution?
Post by: Ander on October 31, 2014, 08:42:53 pm
 
Interesting idea. I can see both sides of this discussion.

a) Fixed dilution limits future unknowns.
b) Fixed dilution gives investors peace of mind.

I can't decide.

 +5% :P
Title: Re: A BitShares Constitution?
Post by: fuzzy on October 31, 2014, 08:43:02 pm
always loved this idea. 

We should put it on real parchment paper and each contributor signs it.  How about that for an incentive to contribute to it?!   

Couldn't we slightly modify the most well-thought-out Consitution to date for the digital age?  "Authorities" would certainly fear taking any of its signers into custody....that is for damned sure. 
Title: Re: A BitShares Constitution?
Post by: clout on October 31, 2014, 08:48:34 pm
We should probably write our declaration of independence as well.
Title: Re: A BitShares Constitution?
Post by: Ander on October 31, 2014, 08:51:45 pm
We should probably write our declaration of independence as well.

This seems a bit silly to me, and could attract attention from government/regulators that we dont want.


What we need is a document outlining a schedule for fixed dilution, that we all agreed to and is hard to change.  Plus a mission/vision statement for what bitshares is about and what our goal is.
Title: Re: A BitShares Constitution?
Post by: bytemaster on October 31, 2014, 08:53:50 pm
Interesting idea. I can see both sides of this discussion.

a) Fixed dilution limits future unknowns.
b) Fixed dilution gives investors peace of mind.

I can't decide.

 +5% :P

+5%  for me too...   hard to decide, limits potential major moves which is good and bad.

Enshrining a maximum dilution rate into the code is really doing nothing more than placing a spending limit on government.   This spending limit is fundamentally tied to the markets ability to absorb the new shares. 

All "Democracies" suffer from the potential of shareholder abuse of power and desire to have unlimited spending ability.   Do we trust the shareholders to make good judgements?  Do we know enough know to bind them for ever?  By what process can we change the rule?

On the other hand who will trust a constitution after our recent moves?  We have already proven the ability to turn on a dime and issue new BTS as necessary.   In the free market there are no rules except survival of the fittest and most flexible.

Having the ability to change the dilution rate with some established process that is deemed "hard but not impossible" is what is needed.
Title: Re: A BitShares Constitution?
Post by: Stan on October 31, 2014, 08:54:45 pm
Interesting idea. I can see both sides of this discussion.

a) Fixed dilution limits future unknowns.
b) Fixed dilution gives investors peace of mind.

I can't decide.

 +5% :P

Easy peasy: 

Nothing can happen very fast. 
If you don't like how the future is unfolding,
sell at that time.

Never try to over constrain the future.
If it were even possible
You are just as likely to prevent yourself from doing something right.

 :)
Title: Re: A BitShares Constitution?
Post by: Ander on October 31, 2014, 08:57:16 pm

Having the ability to change the dilution rate with some established process that is deemed "hard but not impossible" is what is needed.

I agree.

I think that modifying a constituiton is "hard but not impossible". 

It should be hard enough that people have confidence that it should probably not happen, except in an extreme emergency where everyone agrees it must happen.
Title: Re: A BitShares Constitution?
Post by: bytemaster on October 31, 2014, 09:03:29 pm

Having the ability to change the dilution rate with some established process that is deemed "hard but not impossible" is what is needed.

I agree.

I think that modifying a constituiton is "hard but not impossible". 

It should be hard enough that people have confidence that it should probably not happen, except in an extreme emergency where everyone agrees it must happen.

Extreme emergency or extreme opportunity.... I think we can put this kind of thing up to a vote that requires 75% stakeholder approval and allows stakeholder to buy/sell their approval would do the trick.
Title: Re: A BitShares Constitution?
Post by: Ander on October 31, 2014, 09:11:25 pm
Extreme emergency or extreme opportunity.... I think we can put this kind of thing up to a vote that requires 75% stakeholder approval and allows stakeholder to buy/sell their approval would do the trick.

Requiring 75% approval to change sounds great to me. 

Investors would have confidence that greater dilution could only happen with mass approval.
Title: Re: A BitShares Constitution?
Post by: CoinHoarder on October 31, 2014, 09:12:57 pm

Having the ability to change the dilution rate with some established process that is deemed "hard but not impossible" is what is needed.

I agree.

I think that modifying a constituiton is "hard but not impossible". 

It should be hard enough that people have confidence that it should probably not happen, except in an extreme emergency where everyone agrees it must happen.

Extreme emergency or extreme opportunity.... I think we can put this kind of thing up to a vote that requires 75% stakeholder approval and allows stakeholder to buy/sell their approval would do the trick.

This sounds wonderful.

+5% to making a Bitshares' constitution, but I think it should be extended beyond simply dilution. This is actually similar to what I proposed at the end of my last post, except again I believe it should be extended to cover more than dilution.

It should also cover the philosophy or "game plan" of the Bitshares project, including long term goals and incentive structure of Bitshares AGS/PTS ectera. Changing incentive structures and the main "game plan" of Bitshares on the fly provides uncertainty to investors and thus is reflected in the market.

TL;DR: Too much change too fast.. dilution and playing with the incentives of those that have previously invested in AGS and PTS is not cool.

Changing things on the fly does not work with cryptocurrencies, as people like to know what they are investing in, the long term goals of the project, and that those goals won't constantly change on a whim. By changing so many things so drastically and quickly, I am sure we have lost some big stake holders that are now uncertain of Bitshares' future and the success of some of the recent changes. For instance, dilution is a word that carries a very negative connotation in the cryptocurrency community. Also, you guys are playing with the incentives of AGS/PTS/BTS on the fly and that is not cool.. it provides uncertainty to investors and scares people away and the market is reflecting that. I am sure there will be some big PTS holders that show up over the next few weeks that don't follow Bitshares day-to-day. They will be irate when they realize that a final snapshot was taken and that their PTS holdings are now worthless. People "in the know" will come out OK as they can still sell their PTS for Bitcoins at a reasonable exchange rate, but the people that are not will not come out as good as the others.

I think combining DACs was a good move, but when you start playing with the incentives of AGS/PTS/BTS and the incentive structure of DACs themselves (dilution) on the fly, that is not cool. So, although I agree with the main philosophy of the merger, I believe the way it has been carried out was sub optimal. I suggest the Bitshares community take a long hard look in the mirror at this point in time. Write Bitshares' goals and the vision of the project, and then etch that vision in stone. Only change economic incentives of a cryptocurrency when absolutely necessary (preferably never) to the success of the project.
Title: Re: A BitShares Constitution?
Post by: starspirit on October 31, 2014, 09:20:55 pm

Having the ability to change the dilution rate with some established process that is deemed "hard but not impossible" is what is needed.

I agree.

I think that modifying a constituiton is "hard but not impossible". 

It should be hard enough that people have confidence that it should probably not happen, except in an extreme emergency where everyone agrees it must happen.

Extreme emergency or extreme opportunity.... I think we can put this kind of thing up to a vote that requires 75% stakeholder approval and allows stakeholder to buy/sell their approval would do the trick.
The essential problem with dilution is that it is a coercive tax, and the antithesis of voluntary action, especially for smaller stakeholders. I would prefer a constitution built around freedom.
Title: Re: A BitShares Constitution?
Post by: Method-X on October 31, 2014, 09:26:45 pm
A constitution is meant to be social glue. It's in writing and is "official". Eventually people start to almost worship it like a holy book; so I see merit in having our own. As mentioned previously, the first rule should be that changing the constitution requires a 75% supermajority, otherwise inflation is fixed. You get the best of both worlds this way: investor confidence and the ability to tackle both known unknowns and unknown unknowns.
Title: Re: A BitShares Constitution?
Post by: bytemaster on October 31, 2014, 09:36:25 pm

Having the ability to change the dilution rate with some established process that is deemed "hard but not impossible" is what is needed.

I agree.

I think that modifying a constituiton is "hard but not impossible". 

It should be hard enough that people have confidence that it should probably not happen, except in an extreme emergency where everyone agrees it must happen.

Extreme emergency or extreme opportunity.... I think we can put this kind of thing up to a vote that requires 75% stakeholder approval and allows stakeholder to buy/sell their approval would do the trick.
The essential problem with dilution is that it is a coercive tax, and the antithesis of voluntary action, especially for smaller stakeholders. I would prefer a constitution built around freedom.

I disagree about it being a coercive tax for the simple reason that you can use BitGold to trade and save in and never have anything taken from anyone combined with the following:

One person has $100 and contributes it to create a company and owns 100%.
A second person has $100 and contributes it to build a company... how much does each person get as far as ownership rights?  50/50...     You went from 1 share to 2 shares.  Assuming the money was kept in the company the value of each share would be $100.  Thus no wealth transfer, no tax, no threat of violence.   




Title: Re: A BitShares Constitution?
Post by: suwoder on October 31, 2014, 09:37:42 pm
we should Do a  job at present,stop (fu**ing)talk about dilute bitshares and inflation etc.

Title: Re: A BitShares Constitution?
Post by: matt608 on October 31, 2014, 09:49:01 pm
I thought the maximum annual dilution is 8%? 

Is the new question:  Should that be hard-coded to be periodically lowered to stay below bitcoin as bitcoin is lowered via the block reward halving? 

To which I say, yes.

As for a more broad constitution, its a fascinating idea but any more change is just going to shake out everyone who disagrees.  No more big changes.  The Company Analogy is fine, a constitution implies motive beyond shareholder profit, which is another form of dilution, its a dilution of motivation.  Each individual shareholder will have motive beynond profit, e.g. if a delegate wanted to launch a branch of bitshares that was a weapons manufacturer, I would vote against them due to wanting nothing to do with the weapons industry.  I don't need a constitution to tell me what to do.  Isn't that the point of bitshares? 

The code is the constitution.  Nothing more is needed.
Title: Re: A BitShares Constitution?
Post by: oldman on October 31, 2014, 09:50:04 pm
A constitution is meant to be social glue. It's in writing and is "official". Eventually people start to almost worship it like a holy book; so I see merit in having our own. As mentioned previously, the first rule should be that changing the constitution requires a 75% supermajority, otherwise inflation is fixed. You get the best of both worlds this way: investor confidence and the ability to tackle both known unknowns and unknown unknowns.

Agree whole-heartedly.

Cap inflation and require a 75% majority to change it.

Huge boost to investor confidence, including my own.

A written and public constitution with a few simple and hard rules would be a novelty in the crypto space and may garner substantial publicity.

I would highly recommend modelling the language of the constitution on the Declaration of Independence.

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness.

Man would that resonate... freedom rising from the ashes of a corrupt and crushing system.

The 75% super-majority is also an excellent mechanism for establishing the ground rules while providing a robust mechanism for altering them.

The code is the constitution.  Nothing more is needed.

Very true...

Perhaps what is needs is a plain-English summary of the main philosophies the code realizes and the basic framework of rules that will require a super-majority to alter.

I still like the DOI tie-in.

Perhaps a Declaration of Economic Independence?
Title: Re: A BitShares Constitution?
Post by: Ander on October 31, 2014, 09:55:37 pm
I thought the maximum annual dilution is 8%? 

The way I calculate it, it is 6.3% right now.

50 bts per block * 6 blocks/min * 60 min/hour * 24 hour/day * 365 day/year = 157,680,000 shares per year.

.15768B / 2.5B = 6.3%



The thing that troubles some investors is that they dont want the code to be changed to increase this amount.  That is, they think "once you allow any dilution at all, you could allow UNLIMITED dilution".

This is the goal of the constitution, to make it very very hard for that to ever occur.


Quote
Is the new question:  Should that be periodically lowered to stay below bitcoin as bitcoin is lowered via the block reward halving? 

To which I say, yes.

I also say yes.  I dont think our schedule needs to be the same halving per 4 years though.  A smoother decline would be preferable to a disruption at a certain date.

Quote
The code is the constitution.  Nothing more is needed.


I think the constitution is basically a promise to never make the code do certain things that we might not approve of (dilution), without massive community approval.

Its also a marketing document outlining the vision, so that people can understand what bitshares is trying to do.
Title: Re: A BitShares Constitution?
Post by: starspirit on October 31, 2014, 09:57:17 pm

Having the ability to change the dilution rate with some established process that is deemed "hard but not impossible" is what is needed.

I agree.

I think that modifying a constituiton is "hard but not impossible". 

It should be hard enough that people have confidence that it should probably not happen, except in an extreme emergency where everyone agrees it must happen.

Extreme emergency or extreme opportunity.... I think we can put this kind of thing up to a vote that requires 75% stakeholder approval and allows stakeholder to buy/sell their approval would do the trick.
The essential problem with dilution is that it is a coercive tax, and the antithesis of voluntary action, especially for smaller stakeholders. I would prefer a constitution built around freedom.

I disagree about it being a coercive tax for the simple reason that you can use BitGold to trade and save in and never have anything taken from anyone combined with the following:

One person has $100 and contributes it to create a company and owns 100%.
A second person has $100 and contributes it to build a company... how much does each person get as far as ownership rights?  50/50...     You went from 1 share to 2 shares.  Assuming the money was kept in the company the value of each share would be $100.  Thus no wealth transfer, no tax, no threat of violence.
I've started a new thread on this, here https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10835.0. "Is dilution a coercive tax? - and voluntary alternatives".

In essence I think you are correct only if each party agrees on the value of the capital being contributed. If each contributed $100 to a company, that's easy. If the contribution is in the form of skill, users, network effect etc, that's subjective. Please refer my thread.
Title: Re: A BitShares Constitution?
Post by: julian1 on October 31, 2014, 10:11:20 pm
Enshrine it the protocol/blockchain since that is the constitution that underpins our community.

This would create investor confidence and is a much simpler message to communicate to cautious outsiders.

If there's a genuine emergency need for funds then hard fork.
Title: Re: A BitShares Constitution?
Post by: bytemaster on October 31, 2014, 10:13:37 pm
Enshrine it the protocol/blockchain since that is the constitution that underpins our community.

This would create investor confidence and is a much simpler message to communicate to cautious outsiders.

If there's a genuine emergency need for funds then hard fork.

Code cannot describe intent and can have bugs.  Code is not accessible by the average man.  The code should follow the spirit of the constitution. 
Title: Re: A BitShares Constitution?
Post by: matt608 on October 31, 2014, 10:13:52 pm
I thought the maximum annual dilution is 8%? 

The way I calculate it, it is 6.3% right now.

50 bts per block * 6 blocks/min * 60 min/hour * 24 hour/day * 365 day/year = 157,680,000 shares per year.

.15768B / 2.5B = 6.3%


If that is the case this needs to be emphasised!  Why did BM say 8% was the maximum today on mumble?  People are making valuations and selling based on what they think the inflation will be.

I dont think our schedule needs to be the same halving per 4 years though.  A smoother decline would be preferable to a disruption at a certain date.

Agreed.


[A constitution is] also a marketing document outlining the vision, so that people can understand what bitshares is trying to do.

I'm all in favour of a marketing document for 3i and other delegates to use to use for marketing and to guide their marketing decisions.  But that is not a constitution.  A constitution requires getting everyone to agree, and requires everyone to obey it afterwards.  It comes with an aweful cost - everyone who disagrees leaves.  It's completely unnecessary.  I am a huge dreamer when it comes to startup governments, direct digital democracy etc, but bitshares doesn't need it.  This will send the Chinese away in swathes, but we do need a hard cap on dilution coded in which reduces to stay well below bitcoin.

I must emphasise, the code is the constitution!  That is what we all agree on, that is why we buy bitshares.

Individual delegates will effectively have their own constitution, but there need be no overarching constitution other than the code itself!
Title: Re: A BitShares Constitution?
Post by: Ander on October 31, 2014, 10:17:28 pm
If that is the case this needs to be emphasised!  Why did BM say 8% was the maximum today on mumble?  People are making valuations and selling based on what they think the inflation will be.

Because bitcoin is around 8% right now and he was emphasizing that it was lower than that maybe?

Also because math is hard. :D

Title: Re: A BitShares Constitution?
Post by: Empirical1.1 on October 31, 2014, 10:19:11 pm
A constitution is meant to be social glue. It's in writing and is "official". Eventually people start to almost worship it like a holy book; so I see merit in having our own. As mentioned previously, the first rule should be that changing the constitution requires a 75% supermajority, otherwise inflation is fixed. You get the best of both worlds this way: investor confidence and the ability to tackle both known unknowns and unknown unknowns.

Agree whole-heartedly.

Cap inflation and require a 75% majority to change it.

Huge boost to investor confidence, including my own.

A written and public constitution with a few simple and hard rules would be a novelty in the crypto space and may garner substantial publicity.

I would highly recommend modelling the language of the constitution on the Declaration of Independence.

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness.

Man would that resonate... freedom rising from the ashes of a corrupt and crushing system.

The 75% super-majority is also an excellent mechanism for establishing the ground rules while providing a robust mechanism for altering them.

The code is the constitution.  Nothing more is needed.

Very true...

Perhaps what is needs is a plain-English summary of the main philosophies the code realizes and the basic framework of rules that will require a super-majority to alter.

I still like the DOI tie-in.

Perhaps a Declaration of Economic Independence?

 +5%

As Bytemaster brought up we have recently changed on a dime. So personally, I would prefer to give ironclad dilution rules, 'Defined dilution, full stop' vs. 'Defined Dilution, caveat'
Though I think a 75% super-majority in a constitution is a big improvement as to what's needed for this market.

Other ideas.. Something about minimum collateral for creating a BitAsset?

In the real world collateral gets reduced to dangerously low levels so customers are really taking enormous risks without realising. So maybe giving BitAsset users, (especially when the financial system collapses) some confidence about the initial BitAsset backing never being below 100%.

I believe for this market, that the community, shareholders and users should feel that BitShares is about more than just business on a blockchain. It's something people should feel good to be a part of imo. Of course it could limit us, but what you gain in trust, confidence & loyalty in this market, particularly given the direction the world is heading, could be worth it imo.

Title: Re: A BitShares Constitution?
Post by: matt608 on October 31, 2014, 10:26:41 pm
Enshrine it the protocol/blockchain since that is the constitution that underpins our community.

This would create investor confidence and is a much simpler message to communicate to cautious outsiders.

If there's a genuine emergency need for funds then hard fork.

Code cannot describe intent and can have bugs.  Code is not accessible by the average man.  The code should follow the spirit of the constitution.

What the code allows people to do speaks for itself.  Adding another layer of politics into the system is a weakness.  Users of bitassets don't need bitshares to have a constitution, neither do shareholders (they've been fine so far), delegates will each have their own mini-consitution. 

Bitshares will end up being governed by the most popular delegates and their constitutions, combined with the code.

Who is this over-arching constitution for?  If 3i will become delegates then there is no organisation that is bitshares that has a constitution.  There are just delegates, BTS holders and bitasset users connected by financial incentives in a decentralised network.

Title: Re: A BitShares Constitution?
Post by: xeroc on October 31, 2014, 10:34:13 pm
it depends on which words you choose
example:

- Will will not be more than 21M Bitcion
- Bitcoin will not have more than 21M units

see the difference? If you choose your words correctly no freedom for INTERPRETATION will be left!
Title: Re: A BitShares Constitution?
Post by: bytemaster on October 31, 2014, 10:49:12 pm
Enshrine it the protocol/blockchain since that is the constitution that underpins our community.

This would create investor confidence and is a much simpler message to communicate to cautious outsiders.

If there's a genuine emergency need for funds then hard fork.

Code cannot describe intent and can have bugs.  Code is not accessible by the average man.  The code should follow the spirit of the constitution.

What the code allows people to do speaks for itself.  Adding another layer of politics into the system is a weakness.  Users of bitassets don't need bitshares to have a constitution, neither do shareholders (they've been fine so far), delegates will each have their own mini-consitution. 

Bitshares will end up being governed by the most popular delegates and their constitutions, combined with the code.

Who is this over-arching constitution for?  If 3i will become delegates then there is no organisation that is bitshares that has a constitution.  There are just delegates, BTS holders and bitasset users connected by financial incentives in a decentralised network.

It would be a non binding expression of core principles and vision.   It would not be a set of rules... the rules are enforced by the code and the market.   

We hodl these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal with certain inalienable rights that among these are Life, Liberty and Property.   That to secure these rights social consensuses are adopted that apply equally to all men and the highest convention is that no man shall do unto another man that which he would not want done unto himself. 

We recognize that property rights are essential to the security of life and liberty and that the primary purpose of social consensus systems is to establish property rights that are indisputable or quickly resolved without using the threat force or coercion.   

We recognize that no man shall be compelled to join our endeavor and that each man shall have an opportunity to profit from our common venture proportional to their contributions to this venture and that all shall share equally in the costs funded by issuance of new BTS subject to the approval of existing BTS holders.

We recognize that a common stake known as BTS shall be used to track each individuals contribution and that the holders of BTS shall not have the power to redefine property rights in other asset classes.  (this gets tricky... but probably needs to be addressed).

... just some thoughts...  this document should be something that all delegates publicly support like all senators are expected to support and defend the constitution.    When evaluating hard forks they should be evaluated in light of these principles.

I prefer to stick to principles over rules and procedures wherever possible.   Principles rarely change, but rules and procedures sometimes need to change to hold to principles. 




 
Title: Re: A BitShares Constitution?
Post by: mira on October 31, 2014, 10:59:20 pm

We hodl these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal with certain inalienable rights that among these are Life, Liberty and Property....

Could we change the nouns?
Title: Re: A BitShares Constitution?
Post by: xeroc on October 31, 2014, 11:01:18 pm

We hodl these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal with certain inalienable rights that among these are Life, Liberty and Property....

Could we change the nouns?
Do we finally have a lady around? That would be cool!
Title: Re: A BitShares Constitution?
Post by: mira on October 31, 2014, 11:03:59 pm

We hodl these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal with certain inalienable rights that among these are Life, Liberty and Property....

Could we change the nouns?
Do we finally have a lady around? That would be cool!

Yes, you do.  Greetings!

(Even if you didn't, wouldn't you want inclusive language written into your constitution, being as we are in the 21st century?)
Title: Re: A BitShares Constitution?
Post by: bytemaster on October 31, 2014, 11:05:52 pm
Of course I meant mankind inclusive of the ladies
Title: Re: A BitShares Constitution?
Post by: Ander on October 31, 2014, 11:07:20 pm

We hodl these truths to be self evident...


Hehe.
Title: Re: A BitShares Constitution?
Post by: Ander on October 31, 2014, 11:07:51 pm
(Even if you didn't, wouldn't you want inclusive language written into your constitution, being as we are in the 21st century?)
+5%

Yes, we do!


Title: Re: A BitShares Constitution?
Post by: Method-X on October 31, 2014, 11:09:35 pm

We hodl these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal with certain inalienable rights that among these are Life, Liberty and Property....

Could we change the nouns?

Are you the mythical crypto female???
Title: Re: A BitShares Constitution?
Post by: bytemaster on October 31, 2014, 11:09:36 pm


We hodl these truths to be self evident...


Hehe.

Glad someone saw that
Title: Re: A BitShares Constitution?
Post by: oldman on October 31, 2014, 11:10:12 pm

We hodl these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal with certain inalienable rights that among these are Life, Liberty and Property....

Could we change the nouns?


Individuals or persons.



It would be a non binding expression of core principles and vision.   It would not be a set of rules... the rules are enforced by the code and the market.   

We hodl these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal with certain inalienable rights that among these are Life, Liberty and Property.   That to secure these rights social consensuses are adopted that apply equally to all men and the highest convention is that no man shall do unto another man that which he would not want done unto himself. 

We recognize that property rights are essential to the security of life and liberty and that the primary purpose of social consensus systems is to establish property rights that are indisputable or quickly resolved without using the threat force or coercion.   

We recognize that no man shall be compelled to join our endeavor and that each man shall have an opportunity to profit from our common venture proportional to their contributions to this venture and that all shall share equally in the costs funded by issuance of new BTS subject to the approval of existing BTS holders.

We recognize that a common stake known as BTS shall be used to track each individuals contribution and that the holders of BTS shall not have the power to redefine property rights in other asset classes.  (this gets tricky... but probably needs to be addressed).


Great stuff!

This should be cleaned up, given a catchy title (Declaration of Freedom? BitShares Constitution?) and put up on the forum, wiki, main page etc.
Title: Re: A BitShares Constitution?
Post by: xeroc on October 31, 2014, 11:10:21 pm
Yes, you do.  Greetings!
Cool .. welcome to the community, have fun ...

Title: Re: A BitShares Constitution?
Post by: matt608 on October 31, 2014, 11:14:56 pm
I don't see why it's necessary.  Getting everyone to agree on it will take weeks, its a massive time drain, and those who don't agree will leave.  Why do delegates need a constitution to guide them?  Let the political system emerge as it grows, no need to but a binder on it. What if something far better than this can emerge from the delegate competition?  That's a revolutionary experiment in itself.  Keep it all open for political innovation.

No more big change.  This is just unnecessary, its extreme, and they're not core principles, I do agree with a lot of them, but they are your principles.  This undermines your handing over of power to the delegates, it's like, oh one last thing, here's a constitution written by me! 

If this is just something you are going to use for yourself as a delegate, that is fine in fact I support that.  Delegates using their ideals in the competition is great, but not as some 'final act' of palpatine.  It's against freedom to write the guiding principles yourself.

Edit:  I've agreed with everything else you've done BM, but not this.
Title: Re: A BitShares Constitution?
Post by: julian1 on October 31, 2014, 11:33:05 pm
The UK doesn't have a formal fixed constitution - and yet it has some of the strongest protections for life, liberty and property of any nation state. This is because the core principles have been extracted and their application refined during the development of the common law precedents in an organic process over hundreds of years.
 
Also, create a constitution, and it would be much more difficult to rebut the presumption that there's no intention to create a legal relationship and corresponding rights and obligations between members of the Bitshares community. Relationships that can be interpreted and might be enforceable in a real-world court.

This goes against my understanding, that Bitshares was choosing at this time to avoid making itself subject to the jurisdiction of various securities and exchange laws.
Title: Re: A BitShares Constitution?
Post by: Empirical1.1 on October 31, 2014, 11:36:17 pm
Edit:  I've agreed with everything else you've done BM, but not this.  This will cause a riot in China.

I've asked for the dilution question + constitution to be put to the Chinese market.

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10774.msg142590#msg142590

My impression was that they are the market that dislike undefined dilution the most.

I think agree with principles over rules for everything else though.

I think ideals & principles centred around freedom, fairness & privacy etc.  are a positive.

Title: Re: A BitShares Constitution?
Post by: starspirit on October 31, 2014, 11:44:35 pm
We recognize that no man shall be compelled to join our endeavor and that each man shall have an opportunity to profit from our common venture proportional to their contributions to this venture and that all shall share equally in the costs funded by issuance of new BTS subject to the approval of existing BTS holders.

I suggest an alternative-

We recognise that no person shall be compelled to join our endeavour or to contribute to the venture, and that each person shall have an opportunity to profit from our common venture through contributions made voluntarily to this venture. We also recognise contributions that are made voluntarily and in good faith for the benefit of the community without expectation of profit.

While freedom is a right of all participants, while no voluntary solution exists, all shall share equally in community costs subject to the approval of existing BTS holders.

Why?
- Profit may not be proportional to contributions, depends on risk, success etc
- Emphasises voluntarism of all contributions made.
- Does not enshrine the idea of involuntary contributions, when there are voluntary alternatives available.
- Does not enshrine dilution.
Title: Re: A BitShares Constitution?
Post by: Thom on October 31, 2014, 11:44:56 pm
We haven't really changed directions:

1) I still believe in competing DACs and lowering the barrier to entry.
2) I still believe that 3rd party developers should recognize those who built the software they are using as a foundation.
3) I still believe in the company metaphor for economic development.
4) I still believe in NO CONTRACTS and NO OBLIGATIONS on any party (us or 3rd party developers)
5) I still believe that all DA(CCCCC) metaphors apply and are useful:  Currency, Company, Co-Op, Community, Country
6) I still support 3rd party DACs as being good, just so long as I don't have to spend more than an hour or so per week

I'm sure you had something in mind when you wrote this, but all this talk of a constitution is counter to your 4th point.

I once held the U.S. Constitution in high regard, but now not so much.

If our nation's evolution hasn't taught you that words have little meaning in the face of power.

I also just learned something extremely important, that reading is guessing. Almost every word these days has multiple definitions. Although the difference of each definition for a single word is often subtle, sometimes they're not and often depend on the context they're used. The longer the sentence the greater the possibility you're just guessing at the author's intent. The author may use the first definition for word 1, the second for word 2, the third for word 3 ... Which definitions of each word will the listener assume for each word? If they differ you have a failure to communicate.

In American jurisprudence, entire dictionaries devoted to redefining common language, terms like person become corporations, works like understand are changed from comprehend to "I agree" or "I consent". The legal profession is in the business of twisting and manipulating language to coerce and deceive. Do we really want to rely on a written constitution knowing this, especially when the lawyers can twist our own word to make a case against us?

See https://adask.wordpress.com/2014/10/20/reading-is-guessing/ (https://adask.wordpress.com/2014/10/20/reading-is-guessing/) article for a complete, detailed discussion of this.
Title: Re: A BitShares Constitution?
Post by: Stan on October 31, 2014, 11:47:39 pm
If that is the case this needs to be emphasised!  Why did BM say 8% was the maximum today on mumble?  People are making valuations and selling based on what they think the inflation will be.

Because bitcoin is around 8% right now and he was emphasizing that it was lower than that maybe?

Also because math is hard. :D

8% max was chosen as a not-so-subtle way to remind people that is exactly what Bitcoin is doing - then, incredibly, burning it.

I predict it will be many moons before shareholders will find and agree to fund 101 full time employees.

So in practice, we should see a much, much, much, greater order of magnitude of less dilution than Bitcoin.

(Until everyone sees share price growing at 200% and says, "Ah, ok, ahead, warp factor 8%")

Title: Re: A BitShares Constitution?
Post by: bytemaster on October 31, 2014, 11:47:55 pm
I want to understand the Chinese opinion.

I don't want this to be a binding contract, but rather an expression of opinion that most hold in common. 
Title: Re: A BitShares Constitution?
Post by: starspirit on November 01, 2014, 12:14:16 am
I'm still struggling to understand the consistency between freedom of property rights, and treating others as you would expect yourself to be treated, with dilution forced upon people's property with a consensus vote. Freedom to opt out of a system is not the same as freedom with the system. If we are true to the concept of personal freedom, we should uphold the latter wherever possible, and I would prefer to see that expressed in the terms we apply to dilution, which is necessary in its current form. I like the flexibility of dilution for infusing capital into the system, but would not enshrine this particular method if more voluntary options can be conceived of down the track.
I'm not from China, sorry.
Title: Re: A BitShares Constitution?
Post by: Empirical1.1 on November 01, 2014, 02:19:39 am
Something simple to start -

BitShares

BitShares is a self-funding DAC born on November the 5th, Guy Fawkes Day, 2014.

BitShares' purpose is to protect individual liberty & prosperity through technology & transparency for the benefit of mankind.

BitShares' self-funds using dilution. Starting with a maximum rate of 6% p.a. declining at ?% p.a. This can only be changed by a 75% super-majority vote.

Title: Re: A BitShares Constitution?
Post by: Brent.Allsop on November 01, 2014, 02:26:55 am
People, People, People…

Constitution technology is more than 200 years old.  All you would get from that is a polarized, deadlocked, bickering 2 party congress that can’t do anything.  How much time would it take to build a constitution which would have enough consensus?  Who is going to write it?  How much consensus is enough?  How could we rigorously measure how much more consensus we had achieved by any proposed changes?  If we only lose 25%, is that enough?  Many have expressed doubts about us being able to even write such a contract, and I am in that camp (unless maybe we used Canonizer.com).  Even then it would take years.  I love it when The bytemaster talks about no contracts!!  Another of his brilliant ideas.  But a constitution is just a contract that will start polarizing everyone, which will hobble us, and make us very vulnerable to an intelligent community without such unintelligent bureaucratic red tape.

Enshrining a maximum dilution rate into the code is really doing nothing more than placing a spending limit on government.   This spending limit is fundamentally tied to the markets ability to absorb the new shares. 

Exactly, any dumb hard coded red tape we enshrine makes us very vulnerable.  Modern internet and consensus building technology makes it so we do not need to make these kinds of binding red tape rules and bureaucratic polarizing contracts in order to get anything done.

All "Democracies" suffer from the potential of shareholder abuse of power and desire to have unlimited spending ability.   Do we trust the shareholders to make good judgements?  Do we know enough know to bind them for ever?  By what process can we change the rule?

Obviously, if you can efficiently achieve 100% consensus, you can change absolutely anything.  If you have the ability to use a modern consensus building tool, which can creatively and dynamically give and take to both sides, to achieve consensus, it isn’t that hard.  The bytemaster talks about doing things like giving extra shares to camps objecting to making a certain change, in order to build a larger consensus.  Yet another of his brilliant ideas.  But, you need a system that can facilitate this kind of stuff efficiently.  That I know of no other system in existence could do anything like this, especially without polarizing people into parties, making things worse.

For anyone doubting that building unanimous expert consensus is hard, or not possible with modern consensus building tools, check out what we have done at Canonizer.com among world leading experts in the philosophy of mind field.  At least within the Bitshares community, we have a community that thinks much more alike than all experts, hobbyists, and religious nutbags, in the philosophy of mind field.  All the extreme crazies that can’t get published to any particular school of thought “peer reviewed” rag being published by the Ivory tower, flocks to Canonizer.com because nobody is censored there.

Before Canonizer.com, no 2 experts even in the same school of thought could even agree on the definition of consciousness, let alone achieve any kind of measurable scientific consensus amongst everyone, with zero censoring of anyone.  But with now more than 50 experts participating in greater or lesser degrees, including diverse experts and lay people from many schools of thought like Daniell Dennett, Steven Lehar, David Chalmers, John Smythies, and a growing number of others, including non-censored crazies, we have proven that it is possible to build a definitive near unanimous expert quantitatively measurable scientific consensus.  For example, go to this survey topic to see these definitive shocking, (When we started, I never would have believed this much consensus was possible), consensus results:

http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/88

With the default Canonizer algorithm selected, you will see that the popular consensus achieved to date, which includes all the religious nutbags, for the “Representational Qualia Theory” camp is about 75%.  Then switch to the expert consensus canonizer algorithm on the side bar, (filters out the crazies) and you will see an effective unanimous scientific expert consensus for that camp!


On the other hand who will trust a constitution after our recent moves?

Exactly, we need to have a way to rigorously measure, concisely and quantitatively, how many people are willing to support any particular action.  And we need to be able to dynamically change what we are proposing in an efficient and easy way, which will ensure everyone is still on board, until we get things at least near unanimous, so we don’t lose anyone.

We have already proven the ability to turn on a dime and issue new BTS as necessary.

No, The bytemaster has turned on a dime, but who knows how many of the herd are still running in the other direction??  The Bitshares price crash is proof the entire herd has not turned on a dime.  Is it even approaching 75%??  What we need to do is get the entire herd to turn on a dime, and we need to have the ability to know, quantitatively,  how many people will follow, if any particular decision is made, and we need to be able to use creative dynamic intelligent negotion tactics to make everyone happy, and easily achieve near unanimous consensus for all such decisions.


In the free market, there are no rules except survival of the fittest and most flexible.

Exactly, and the first crypto currency community that can amplify the wisdom of the entire herd, and get the entire herd to change directions on a dime, without significant losses of the sheep, no matter how dumb, will blow any contract or “constitution” based bureaucracy away, with a leader making decisions before knowing how many of his heard will follow him.

Having the ability to change the dilution rate with some established process that is deemed "hard but not impossible" is what is needed.

While it is true, that it takes quite a bit of effort to teach any community how to build consensus by communicating, concicely and quantitatively, on large scales, Canonizer.com has demonstrably proven we can do way better than this, in far more difficult to build consensus circumstances than exists in the Bitshares community.
Title: Re: A BitShares Constitution?
Post by: Thom on November 01, 2014, 03:41:06 am
You make some excellent points, but for various reasons you're encountering resistance in this community to using canonizer.com. For me personally I dislike the trans-humanist involvement and the unknowns about the organizer's agenda. And apparently I'm not alone in my reservations. I'll admit, it's rather lame (herd mentality), but until I see a significant number of others willing to make a go of it by creating logins, stating positions and forming camps I won't be persuaded to put effort into canonizer.com.

I kindof feel for ya Brent, you're in the position of convincing this community you have what we need to distill all of the chaos of ideas expressed here on this forum into an organized, coherent body of positions people could support or reject on a rational, objective basis, but we're not convinced it's the solution you seem to think it is.

It's a sales issue, at least for me. But you need to convince enough of us it's worth trying and I don't see that happening.

Perhaps another aspect of the resistance is for it to work people would need to spend more time on canonizer.com than they do here, and perhaps "here" is a comfortable place people know and are familiar with unlike the unknowns of the canonizer.com environment.

I don't know what to tell you that might help you get traction, but I wish you the best of luck in your efforts.

I am beginning to feel like the community is spinning it's wheels and not making progress towards building consensus or valuable features. As to the later only a very very small set of devs do the work so the community must wait for their efforts to be completed before the face of BTS is anything other than talk. We all await the substance of things soon to come, and once it arrives I think we'll see huge enthusiasm and optimism return to the broader community.

I myself am anxious for that, and my enthusiasm has not wained. But I do look forward to more stability.
Title: Re: A BitShares Constitution?
Post by: Ander on November 01, 2014, 03:53:04 am
You make some excellent points, but for various reasons you're encountering resistance in this community to using canonizer.com. For me personally I dislike the trans-humanist involvement

I find this pretty humorous, for me I disliked the mormon involvement!  :P

"Mormon transhumanist association" seem like a very tiny intersection on a Venn Diagram.

Title: Re: A BitShares Constitution?
Post by: Thom on November 01, 2014, 03:57:50 am
I'm not keen on either belief system or ideology.
Title: Re: A BitShares Constitution?
Post by: Brent.Allsop on November 01, 2014, 04:29:23 am
<sarcasm on>

Oh, darn, you guys are so smart and able to see through the plot of the Mornons and the Transhumanists, (I am their stooge puppet) to take over the world.  Once you guys sign up with Canonizer.com, a transhumanist pair of missionary from the LDS church will show up at your door, and they will be expecting 10% of your bitshares and income and also expect you to start hating Gays and so on.  And if you don’t the avenging angels will arrive, shortly thereafter.

</sarcasm off>

If nobody is thinking anything like the above, what, exactly are you afraid of?  You guys seem to be acting worse than so many of my Mormon friends that think all you Atheists really believe in, and in fact have been visited by....   SATAN!  So, no the Mormons are to afraid to go there.

The only agenda, is to first do the work required, so we can know, concisely and quantitatively, what everyone else wants.  Our theoretical testable prediction is that Peacefully getting at all for everyone, will be easy, after that.


The only reason the Mormon Transhumanist Association is listed in the sponsor section, is because they have used this a bit, in their operations, and support the general idea.  Nothing more.  Oh, and by the way, the Mormon Transhumanist Association has nothing to do with the organized “Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints”, and there is only a minority of membership that is a fully believing member of the LDS church.  If you must know, I consider myself to be a "Bitshare holding, Mormon Transhumanist Atheist", so more an anti Mormon, than any other type of Mormon you may know.  If you Google a bit, you'll find out how much of an Anti Mormon I really am.

I’ve requested permission to include the Bitshares organization, ahead of the MTA, in the sponsor section, but so far haven’t heard an official OK to do that.

Title: Re: A BitShares Constitution?
Post by: carpet ride on November 01, 2014, 04:35:48 am
Constitution should be no more than 4 sentences


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: A BitShares Constitution?
Post by: luckybit on November 01, 2014, 04:36:03 am
I want to understand the Chinese opinion.

I don't want this to be a binding contract, but rather an expression of opinion that most hold in common.

I don't think there should be a political litmus test for becoming a delegate. It's like saying in order to get a job you have to pass a political test or belief in these principles. I don't think it will have a positive effect.

Instead if there are principles then put that in the design of the source code. Express your political principles in the code itself but don't make a constitution. If something isn't allowed then simply express your principles as a delegate and that you refuse to code or contribute to anything which goes against your principles.

Every delegate should be able to express their own principles or non at all. The majority of delegates will just be people who can get stuff done or who know people. When you require they abide by a constitution you could have difficulty in the future recruiting Democrats for example to become delegates. It's not worth it.

The only universal principles we might have should be outlined not now but after we have enough people and a voting history from Bitshares VOTE that we can actually try to say what we believe in based on some data.

Constitution should be no more than 4 sentences


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think the constitution should be based on the code AND the data collected from voting patterns.
It should not be dictated by early adopters who claim to have certain principles but it should be something which can be quantified. For example if we believe in open source and transparency then you can look at the data and see for a fact it is true. If we talk about principles like liberty, property rights and so on, that is going to bring all the useless political debates politicians have to our community which doesn't even advance anything.

Clearly we have principles and we know what Bytemaster thinks, but we don't need to make people pledge allegiance because I think that is very bad. The only thing people have to see is the source code and whatever principles people want to learn about early adopters they can learn from blogs or our public communications.
Title: Re: A BitShares Constitution?
Post by: Brent.Allsop on November 01, 2014, 04:43:18 am
Constitution should be no more than 4 sentences


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If that is true, you can canonize that, and start to build consensus to see just how much consensus there already exists for your 4 lines.  Or, just post the 4 lines here, and I can canonize it for you, along with what I do and don't agree with, so everyone else (that isn't afraid of the MORMONS) can do that same, and so we can start knowing, concisely and quantitatively, exactly what everyone may still disagree with, and what modification will be required to get unanimous expert consensus.

Title: Re: A BitShares Constitution?
Post by: luckybit on November 01, 2014, 04:56:07 am
People, People, People…

Constitution technology is more than 200 years old.  All you would get from that is a polarized, deadlocked, bickering 2 party congress that can’t do anything.  How much time would it take to build a constitution which would have enough consensus?  Who is going to write it?  How much consensus is enough?  How could we rigorously measure how much more consensus we had achieved by any proposed changes?  If we only lose 25%, is that enough?  Many have expressed doubts about us being able to even write such a contract, and I am in that camp (unless maybe we used Canonizer.com).  Even then it would take years.  I love it when The bytemaster talks about no contracts!!  Another of his brilliant ideas.  But a constitution is just a contract that will start polarizing everyone, which will hobble us, and make us very vulnerable to an intelligent community without such unintelligent bureaucratic red tape.

I agree with you. We need to have a dynamically generated smart social consensus instead of a "constitution". We need a constitution which constructs itself based on how we vote. There is no benefit to relying on the methods of old when we don't even have the same limitations.

It is very polarizing and that is why I'm against doing a constitution right now. First you need Bitshares VOTE before you can even attempt something like a constitution. Then you need in my opinion algorithmic voting with CP-nets.

We simply do not know what works, what doesn't, and the data should shape our principles rather than setting stuff in stone before we even know ourselves and our preferences. It's just too soon.

Some stuff we can look at the data and say we believe would be the social consensus. Data shows we believe in it even without a vote but as far as preferences I think they should be asked. A CP-net (conditional preference network) should allow for feedback on the level of preferences. Many preferences are conditional, principles can be set if you simply gather preferences and let the system adapt to preferences.

For example when we have data which allows the DAC to know what everyone wants, how everyone thinks about different issues, then we will know exactly what principles pull us together.

I would say it's obvious we all like technology but we aren't all transhumanists. I would say we all value freedom but we don't agree on what that is. We may or may not believe in socialism but we all seem to believe in either private property or personal property.

But right now it's just too soon to come up with a constitution. We don't know for sure what everyone beliefs and until we collect the data and analyze it then it's not right to speak for everyone. When people can vote on every sentence in the constitution then you can think about doing it collaboratively.

I think if we have a constitution it's better to put it in code. Until that time the closest thing we have to it is the social contract.



Title: Re: A BitShares Constitution?
Post by: Ander on November 01, 2014, 04:59:32 am
If nobody is thinking anything like the above, what, exactly are you afraid of?

I'm not actually afraid of anything.  Canonizer seems interesting.

I just want to meet someone who is both mormon and transhumanist, because that seems really unique.




Apologies for taking this thread super off topic.

<3 anyone who likes bitshares, no matter what their philosophy is!


Title: Re: A BitShares Constitution?
Post by: luckybit on November 01, 2014, 05:04:14 am
Constitution should be no more than 4 sentences


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If that is true, you can canonize that, and start to build consensus to see just how much consensus there already exists for your 4 lines.  Or, just post the 4 lines here, and I can canonize it for you, along with what I do and don't agree with, so everyone else (that isn't afraid of the MORMONS) can do that same, and so we can start knowing, concisely and quantitatively, exactly what everyone may still disagree with, and what modification will be required to get unanimous expert consensus.

You're the guy behind Canonizer Organization right? Could it incorporate CP-nets and algorithmic voting?

As a user my preferences should be collected by an algorithim. A voting language should allow me to describe my vote as an algorithm. Could Canonizer provide a simple front end to generate these voting algorithms for users dynamically and automatically?

I think if Bitshares VOTE and the delegate system stay as it is now it will easily be corrupted by political ideology and dogma. That could be a problem if people were to start voting against their self interest or preferences because of political ideology and dogma. It's a problem because propaganda could trick people into voting malicious delegates into critical positions.

Title: Re: A BitShares Constitution?
Post by: donkeypong on November 01, 2014, 05:22:22 am
I'd like to have a BitShares Constitution. But I'd like it to be a statement of shared principles, values and beliefs. I'm less in favor of using it to frame a governance system or codify rules. I think we've seen what happens when systems and rules (even if they seem like winning ideas that will last forever) may not anticipate future events. Rigidity is a bad recipe. It's better to be flexible and to maintain the ability to adapt to new circumstances. The Constitution should only cover the principles that WON'T be adapted or changed for any reason, ever.
Title: Re: A BitShares Constitution?
Post by: starspirit on November 01, 2014, 05:32:47 am
People, People, People…

Constitution technology is more than 200 years old.  All you would get from that is a polarized, deadlocked, bickering 2 party congress that can’t do anything.  How much time would it take to build a constitution which would have enough consensus?  Who is going to write it?  How much consensus is enough?  How could we rigorously measure how much more consensus we had achieved by any proposed changes?  If we only lose 25%, is that enough?  Many have expressed doubts about us being able to even write such a contract, and I am in that camp (unless maybe we used Canonizer.com).  Even then it would take years.  I love it when The bytemaster talks about no contracts!!  Another of his brilliant ideas.  But a constitution is just a contract that will start polarizing everyone, which will hobble us, and make us very vulnerable to an intelligent community without such unintelligent bureaucratic red tape.

I agree with you. We need to have a dynamically generated smart social consensus instead of a "constitution". We need a constitution which constructs itself based on how we vote. There is no benefit to relying on the methods of old when we don't even have the same limitations.

It is very polarizing and that is why I'm against doing a constitution right now. First you need Bitshares VOTE before you can even attempt something like a constitution. Then you need in my opinion algorithmic voting with CP-nets.

We simply do not know what works, what doesn't, and the data should shape our principles rather than setting stuff in stone before we even know ourselves and our preferences. It's just too soon.

Some stuff we can look at the data and say we believe would be the social consensus. Data shows we believe in it even without a vote but as far as preferences I think they should be asked. A CP-net (conditional preference network) should allow for feedback on the level of preferences. Many preferences are conditional, principles can be set if you simply gather preferences and let the system adapt to preferences.

For example when we have data which allows the DAC to know what everyone wants, how everyone thinks about different issues, then we will know exactly what principles pull us together.

I would say it's obvious we all like technology but we aren't all transhumanists. I would say we all value freedom but we don't agree on what that is. We may or may not believe in socialism but we all seem to believe in either private property or personal property.

But right now it's just too soon to come up with a constitution. We don't know for sure what everyone beliefs and until we collect the data and analyze it then it's not right to speak for everyone. When people can vote on every sentence in the constitution then you can think about doing it collaboratively.

I think if we have a constitution it's better to put it in code. Until that time the closest thing we have to it is the social contract.
People have all sorts of different beliefs, and why shouldn't anyone be welcome to this community? A constitution could weed out people of a common viewpoint, but would it not be better to embrace everybody and let the best belief systems compete for value in the community?

I wonder if we had to bring together a set of common beliefs for this community, that it would not amount to more than this:

- bitShares is an open non-exclusive community that welcomes all participants
- those that create value in the community have the opportunity to be rewarded by the community for those efforts
- all participation is voluntary, and cannot be compelled, including the contribution of personal time, services, property, or other assets
- consensus is based on an individual's stake, but no consensus will be allowed to breach the voluntary rights of individuals
- conflicts will be resolved through community monitoring and action and not through enforcement or any threat of violence
Title: Re: A BitShares Constitution?
Post by: Empirical1.1 on November 01, 2014, 09:15:19 am
The main thing I'd at least like to do is give the market confidence that dilution is capped and is VERY difficult to change. I really think that's where the market is at, but that is also something I'd like to see on a personal level, so could be biased.

Constitution should be no more than 4 sentences


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Regards 'constitution' it seems like that is probably out, even though I suggested it, it seems enough people are not fond of it. A few key broad values seems possible & I agree that it should be short and sweet.
Title: Re: A BitShares Constitution?
Post by: matt608 on November 01, 2014, 09:29:41 am


I don't think there should be a political litmus test for becoming a delegate. It's like saying in order to get a job you have to pass a political test or belief in these principles. I don't think it will have a positive effect.

Instead if there are principles then put that in the design of the source code. Express your political principles in the code itself but don't make a constitution. If something isn't allowed then simply express your principles as a delegate and that you refuse to code or contribute to anything which goes against your principles.

Every delegate should be able to express their own principles or non at all. The majority of delegates will just be people who can get stuff done or who know people.


 +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5%

Why should a delegate who wants to built a lightweight client (or anything) be expected to read this?  The system is already elegant.  Stakeholders vote for delegates.  Adding some other piece of writing that for some reason everyone is supposed to look at is completely superfluous.  Where this belongs is in BM's delegate profile page.
Title: Re: A BitShares Constitution?
Post by: Geneko on November 01, 2014, 10:54:33 am
I may go slightly off topic but this could be insightful  :-\


Exactly, and the first crypto currency community that can amplify the wisdom of the entire herd, and get the entire herd to change directions on a dime, without significant losses of the sheep, no matter how dumb, will blow any contract or “constitution” based bureaucracy away, with a leader making decisions before knowing how many of his heard will follow him.


This is in my humble opinion very interesting topic, making the essence of “proposed hard rules” only maybe stated a bit different: “that can amplify the wisdom and resources of the entire herd”


Exactly, we need to have a way to rigorously measure, concisely and quantitatively, how many people are willing to support any particular action. 


Voting Dac could do the trick.


 And we need to be able to dynamically change what we are proposing in an efficient and easy way, which will ensure everyone is still on board, until we get things at least near unanimous, so we don’t lose anyone.


This is the tricky part, at least for me. Could you please explain in plain language how exactly it could work? 
Title: Re: A BitShares Constitution?
Post by: dna_gym on November 01, 2014, 11:15:49 am
I am in strong favor of controlled by a law or constitution that should be stable as possible as it can be, instead of relying on so called "trusted" people who have more power than others and harness the power to implement "better and flexible" policy.
I actually don't trust the "trusted" authoritative people.
Title: Re: A BitShares Constitution?
Post by: amencon on November 01, 2014, 02:15:07 pm
On the other hand who will trust a constitution after our recent moves?  We have already proven the ability to turn on a dime and issue new BTS as necessary.   In the free market there are no rules except survival of the fittest and most flexible.
Who would trust such a constitution is not the only issue as it seems that you guys don't want to be hamstrung by promises for the future.

Even if you did get people to trust such a constitution and then had to diverge from it based on unforseen circumstances, I think having the constitution in place would end up doing more harm than good at that point.

I feel like this constitution idea is an appeal to calm investors in the short term, but isn't a viable solution long term considering how "agile" BitShares is.

BM himself is stating that nothing is certain and can change at any time in the future.  While the certainty of a constitution feels comforting I think it's more honest to continue without it or anything similar.
Title: Re: A BitShares Constitution?
Post by: CoinHoarder on November 01, 2014, 03:30:39 pm
I am in strong favor of controlled by a law or constitution that should be stable as possible as it can be, instead of relying on so called "trusted" people who have more power than others and harness the power to implement "better and flexible" policy.
I actually don't trust the "trusted" authoritative people.

+5% +5%

The past update that introduced dilution and played with the incentives of AGS/PTS was not cool, as is reflected in the market. I agree with the merger, but it was not cool of BM to include dilution in the fine print of the merger or change the social contract of AGS/PTS. The community had already spoken out against dilution and there was obviously a large part of the community that didn't want it. Dilution is not necessary for development and marketing. Look at how far Bitcoin has come and its dilution goes 100% to people whom secure the block chain no strings attached.

More community feedback should of been received before moving forward with those plans. A constitution is needed as it will make it so that it is necessary to heed the community feedback of BTS stakeholders, as you will be needing 70% of their approval to make the changes. I don't think anyone expects it to be very detailed, but it should contain the Bitshares social contract and a clause for BTS dilution.
Title: Re: A BitShares Constitution?
Post by: Brent.Allsop on November 01, 2014, 06:54:43 pm
I am in strong favor of controlled by a law or constitution that should be stable as possible as it can be, instead of relying on so called "trusted" people who have more power than others and harness the power to implement "better and flexible" policy.
I actually don't trust the "trusted" authoritative people.

Exactly the problem.  Canonizer.com solves this problem by giving people the ability to choose their own preferred canonization algorithm, on the side bar.  In other words, YOU select the people you most trust, and measure the consensus according to that, while comparing that to popular, or any other type of consensus.  It may turn out to be something like 75% of your selected experts think we should dilute Bitshares by X amount for Y purpose.

Nothing is censored on the way in, but individuals can prioritize, or censor things as they choose, on the way out.

Title: Re: A BitShares Constitution?
Post by: Brent.Allsop on November 01, 2014, 07:24:33 pm
And we need to be able to dynamically change what we are proposing in an efficient and easy way, which will ensure everyone is still on board, until we get things at least near unanimous, so we don’t lose anyone.
This is the tricky part, at least for me. Could you please explain in plain language how exactly it could work?

Yes, this is the specific part that Canonizer.com does, and it should be integrated with the rest of the vote DAC systems, as you describe.  No need to duplicate effort.

And I love the algorithmic voting and such ideas LuckyBit is proposing.  Yes, I am the founder of Canonizer.com, and it would be great to either interface Canonizer.com into something you are proposing.  Send me an e-mail and help me better understand the details of your great ideas.

As far as the Canonizer consensus building methodolodgy, it helps to start with what is the ultimate goal.  Rather than having 1000 individual posts, by 1000 individuals, The goal is to have a concise, quantitative, hierarchical representation of what everyone is currently thinking, with the fewest possible camps, with the most people in each.  The focus always being for each camp, what would it take to convert you to another camp.  In other words, what kind of experimental results would falsify your theory, and convert you.  Or what would another POV have to give up, to get you on board.  Then you work on doing those experiments, continually reducing the number of camps, till there is a unanimous consensus.

Any One person starts the survey by putting up the purpose or goals of the survey topic in the root or top camp, then they create the first sub camp describing what they think they currently want/believe/predict.  Then when others come, they assume what is there now, is the yet to be completed consensus of the crowd.  You can assume you are an expert, and are the first participator that has justification for a new and better way than what is there now.  So you propose changing things accordingly.  Proposed changes go into review for 1 week, and if no supporters of the camp objects, your changes go live, ensuring unanimous consensus of all camp supporters.

If someone does object, you can start the negotiation process to find a way to state things that everyone agrees with.  If this is not possible, you can keep what you agree on (usually the most important issues) in a supper camp, and push the disagreeable issues into supporting sub camps.

If one person is objecting to a change everyone else wants to make, everyone else can threaten to fork and jump to the new camp, leaving the lone objector in a camp that will then be filtered out by most people.  Keeping as much consensus as possible motivates people to work as hard as possible finding creative ways to keep the consensus.

There is much more than this, and if you see problems, we have likely also solved those.  So just keep asking questions, if you still see other issues.

For those that don't yet know, I've started a survey topic for the single issue of BTS dilution here:

http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/160

And I've created a camp expressing what I believe.  If your camp is already there, you just cast your vote by joining the camp, possibly improving it if you want.  Otherwise, if your view isn't there yet, you start a new camp so others that agree can find you and help.


















Title: Re: A BitShares Constitution?
Post by: onceuponatime on November 01, 2014, 07:34:05 pm
@Brent.Allsop:  Please explain the Registration form. Why is "Legal Middle Name" the only required field, and not, say, "Nickname"?
Title: Re: A BitShares Constitution?
Post by: Mysto on November 01, 2014, 07:40:10 pm
Having the ability to change the dilution rate with some established process that is deemed "hard but not impossible" is what is needed.

 +5% +5% +5%
Title: Re: A BitShares Constitution?
Post by: Brent.Allsop on November 01, 2014, 07:52:38 pm


@Brent.Allsop:  Please explain the Registration form. Why is "Legal Middle Name" the only required field, and not, say, "Nickname"?

Sorry, yet another issue that needs to be fixed in this mere prototype.

There are two types of *s.  Red ones, always required, and black *s, only required for any financial operations, which is all future proposed stuff, so can just be ignored.  If there is no *, it is not required, ever.

I'll get started fixing that.



Title: Re: A BitShares Constitution?
Post by: Brent.Allsop on November 01, 2014, 07:56:11 pm
Having the ability to change the dilution rate with some established process that is deemed "hard but not impossible" is what is needed.

 +5% +5% +5%

So is a 95% consensus sufficiently hard enough?  That is the initial thinking in the first camp on this issue:

http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/160/2

If it is, lets continue building consensus around this proposal.


Title: Re: A BitShares Constitution?
Post by: bytemaster on November 01, 2014, 09:09:13 pm
I think I will write a personal constitution that is not binding on anyone nor the BitShares project so that people know what my values are. 

I don't think BitShares needs a constitution other than the code as adopted by delegates.
Title: Re: A BitShares Constitution?
Post by: toast on November 01, 2014, 09:11:29 pm
Quote
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.

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10879.0
Title: Re: A BitShares Constitution?
Post by: toast on November 01, 2014, 09:11:42 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.

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10879.0
Title: Re: A BitShares Constitution?
Post by: matt608 on November 01, 2014, 09:51:02 pm
I think I will write a personal constitution that is not binding on anyone nor the BitShares project so that people know what my values are. 

I don't think BitShares needs a constitution other than the code as adopted by delegates.

Glad to hear it.  +5%
Title: Re: A BitShares Constitution?
Post by: xeroc on November 01, 2014, 10:42:48 pm
I think I will write a personal constitution that is not binding on anyone nor the BitShares project so that people know what my values are. 

I don't think BitShares needs a constitution other than the code as adopted by delegates.

Glad to hear it.  +5%
+5%
and we can have a community honoring BMs constitution  :P (just kidding)
Title: Re: A BitShares Constitution?
Post by: luckybit on November 02, 2014, 05:18:14 am
I think I will write a personal constitution that is not binding on anyone nor the BitShares project so that people know what my values are. 

I don't think BitShares needs a constitution other than the code as adopted by delegates.

An honor code is probably what you want to agree to. It's actually common in colleges to sign something like that and it works well.

Gift networks typically have to work on the honor system. So a personal constitution might be the honor code but since all of us might have a slightly different honor code at least until we know how the honor system is going to work it might be a good idea to just come up with a personal code which we constantly update as we figure it out.

So 1.0 might be significantly different from 2.0.

Reference 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_honor_code
Title: Re: A BitShares Constitution?
Post by: Mysto on November 02, 2014, 08:14:12 am
I think I will write a personal constitution that is not binding on anyone nor the BitShares project so that people know what my values are. 

I don't think BitShares needs a constitution other than the code as adopted by delegates.
+5%
Constitutions need to be amended (times change and we can't predict what will happen in the future). The way I see it is we start out with a constitution then shareholders can amend it to fit their needs. I would hate some "set in stone", unchangeable constitution.
Title: Re: A BitShares Constitution?
Post by: Shentist on November 02, 2014, 09:04:09 am
assume a marketcap of 2Bn - why would we need 8% dilution in this marketcap? would be 160 million for the employeed people.

in the near future maybe it is possible to change the dilution model to take the needed value from the stakeholders direct.

you hold 1.000.000 million BTS and the employeed people need 5% this year to work for us, so we take 50.000 BTS from this owner (as an example for all owners) so he will hold 950.000.000 BTS in the end of the year.

i know this is not common, but maybe the stakeholders will watch the employeed people closer and will higher and fire faster.
Title: A BitShares Constitution?
Post by: carpet ride on November 02, 2014, 02:22:24 pm
assume a marketcap of 2Bn - why would we need 8% dilution in this marketcap? would be 160 million for the employeed people.

in the near future maybe it is possible to change the dilution model to take the needed value from the stakeholders direct.

you hold 1.000.000 million BTS and the employeed people need 5% this year to work for us, so we take 50.000 BTS from this owner (as an example for all owners) so he will hold 950.000.000 BTS in the end of the year.

i know this is not common, but maybe the stakeholders will watch the employeed people closer and will higher and fire faster.

We need to see the controls for dilution and delegate's work processes.  My hunch is it all ties back to VOTE. But in the mean time, not knowing how much we'll be diluted, and to what gain, is the investor's greatest area of uncertainty.


So many people want to be delegates, and it scares shareholders that there could be 101 delegates diluting the system. There is no clear and standardized way to track these individuals.  And even then, will enough people actually recast their votes to get the over promising, under producing delegates out?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: A BitShares Constitution?
Post by: Empirical1.1 on November 02, 2014, 02:57:55 pm
assume a marketcap of 2Bn - why would we need 8% dilution in this marketcap? would be 160 million for the employeed people.

in the near future maybe it is possible to change the dilution model to take the needed value from the stakeholders direct.

you hold 1.000.000 million BTS and the employeed people need 5% this year to work for us, so we take 50.000 BTS from this owner (as an example for all owners) so he will hold 950.000.000 BTS in the end of the year.

i know this is not common, but maybe the stakeholders will watch the employeed people closer and will higher and fire faster.

We need to see the controls for dilution and delegate's work processes.  My hunch is it all ties back to VOTE. But in the mean time, not knowing how much we'll be diluted, and to what gain, is the investor's greatest area of uncertainty.


So many people want to be delegates, and it scares shareholders that there could be 101 delegates diluting the system. There is no clear and standardized way to track these individuals.  And even then, will enough people actually recast their votes to get the over promising, under producing delegates out?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Imo, there's also a centralisation of active voting stake problem. BTC38 controls at least 10% which is more than enough to strongly influence delegate selection.

Once you add in dilution + TITAN, BTS requires a lot of trust in a centralised exchange  ??? which kind of defeats the point imo.
Title: Re: A BitShares Constitution?
Post by: carpet ride on November 02, 2014, 03:02:46 pm

assume a marketcap of 2Bn - why would we need 8% dilution in this marketcap? would be 160 million for the employeed people.

in the near future maybe it is possible to change the dilution model to take the needed value from the stakeholders direct.

you hold 1.000.000 million BTS and the employeed people need 5% this year to work for us, so we take 50.000 BTS from this owner (as an example for all owners) so he will hold 950.000.000 BTS in the end of the year.

i know this is not common, but maybe the stakeholders will watch the employeed people closer and will higher and fire faster.

We need to see the controls for dilution and delegate's work processes.  My hunch is it all ties back to VOTE. But in the mean time, not knowing how much we'll be diluted, and to what gain, is the investor's greatest area of uncertainty.


So many people want to be delegates, and it scares shareholders that there could be 101 delegates diluting the system. There is no clear and standardized way to track these individuals.  And even then, will enough people actually recast their votes to get the over promising, under producing delegates out?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Imo, there's also a centralisation of active voting stake problem. BTC38 controls at least 10% which is more than enough to strongly influence delegate selection.

Once you add in dilution + TITAN, BTS requires a lot of trust in a centralised exchange  ??? which kind of defeats the point imo.

Agree.  The system needs more distributed control.  What will the solution be?

The only solution I can come up with is that there will be incentives to keep value inside the system by offering rewards for voting.

Are there any other ways to get stake into the system and away from btc38/bter


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: A BitShares Constitution?
Post by: Empirical1.1 on November 02, 2014, 03:43:07 pm

assume a marketcap of 2Bn - why would we need 8% dilution in this marketcap? would be 160 million for the employeed people.

in the near future maybe it is possible to change the dilution model to take the needed value from the stakeholders direct.

you hold 1.000.000 million BTS and the employeed people need 5% this year to work for us, so we take 50.000 BTS from this owner (as an example for all owners) so he will hold 950.000.000 BTS in the end of the year.

i know this is not common, but maybe the stakeholders will watch the employeed people closer and will higher and fire faster.

We need to see the controls for dilution and delegate's work processes.  My hunch is it all ties back to VOTE. But in the mean time, not knowing how much we'll be diluted, and to what gain, is the investor's greatest area of uncertainty.


So many people want to be delegates, and it scares shareholders that there could be 101 delegates diluting the system. There is no clear and standardized way to track these individuals.  And even then, will enough people actually recast their votes to get the over promising, under producing delegates out?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Imo, there's also a centralisation of active voting stake problem. BTC38 controls at least 10% which is more than enough to strongly influence delegate selection.

Once you add in dilution + TITAN, BTS requires a lot of trust in a centralised exchange  ??? which kind of defeats the point imo.

Agree.  The system needs more distributed control.  What will the solution be?

The only solution I can come up with is that there will be incentives to keep value inside the system by offering rewards for voting.

Are there any other ways to get stake into the system and away from btc38/bter


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

An easier way to register a first account could help, I think BTC38 will only send BTSX to a registered account still, but I could be wrong. Incentives or more interest in actually voting could help, an argument in favour of dilution is now that there is more money available for actual projects we may see people take more interest.

Another solution is as suggested in this thread, linking BTS completely to a certain limit, so that to change it would never be possible, the same way Bitcoin would be unable to mess with its distribution at this stage. That would limit the damage a malevolent block could do and give the market more confidence. (Ideal for me is a hard cap that sets aside 10-20% of shares in the beginning for 5 years development and hope to be profitable enough to self fund after that.)
Title: Re: A BitShares Constitution?
Post by: oldman on November 02, 2014, 03:44:43 pm
I think I will write a personal constitution that is not binding on anyone nor the BitShares project so that people know what my values are. 

I don't think BitShares needs a constitution other than the code as adopted by delegates.

 +5%
Title: Re: A BitShares Constitution?
Post by: CoinHoarder on November 02, 2014, 03:50:39 pm
I changed my mind about a constitution. I do not think it is needed.

The real issue is voter apathy. I3/exchanges act as the judge, jury, and executioner, and thus control everything... they control delegates therefore they control the code base, dilution, etc... They aren't even doing a good job of it. Half of the delegates don't publish price feeds & there are multiple anonymous delegates under control by one person, yet a blind eye is turned.

I was voted out for being late to update once, yet I did a better job of being a delegate than half of the delegates that are currently voted in as they don't even publish price feeds. Almost all updates (except for the one I was voted out on) I updated within minutes-hours of the release. I have now given up on being a delegate... I think I am too opinionated to campaign in a political setting anyways. I don't want to feel like I need to bite my tongue just so that I won't be voted out as I felt when I was a delegate.

I haven't heard a good solution to fix voter apathy, but I think we should bring more attention to the matter and discuss it further.
Title: Re: A BitShares Constitution?
Post by: Pheonike on November 02, 2014, 04:05:32 pm
We do need a Human Consensus Algorithm or Community Consensus Algorithm. A set of guidelines on how we implement changes to the system.

 The DAC's rule might be in stone, but we need procedures for carving those stones.
Title: Re: A BitShares Constitution?
Post by: Method-X on November 02, 2014, 05:02:23 pm
I think I am too opinionated to campaign in a political setting anyways. I don't want to feel like I need to bite my tongue just so that I won't be voted out as I felt when I was a delegate.

This is exactly what I've been thinking since I decided to run a delegate for marketing. I'm also very opinionated and I don't want to feel like I have to pander for votes. I've come to the conclusion that if I'm going to get voted out for my opinions then so be it. I will never pander.
Title: Re: A BitShares Constitution?
Post by: Mysto on November 02, 2014, 05:28:53 pm

Are there any other ways to get stake into the system and away from btc38/bter

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think the biggest thing stopping people is bitUSD liquidity. Quite a few people are actively trading BTSX. They would use bitUSD the only problem is the low volume which is causing a ~3% wide spread. I have some BTSX on both bter and btc38 that I actively trade. I still trade in bitUSD but not with a large amount at all.

So increase liquidity is one solution. Another is wait till after the exchange votes, withdraw your money and vote. That might pressure exchanges to not want to vote since so much money is leaving at once.
But over all I think exchanges are voting with good intent. They have a large sum of money they are in charge of and by voting they are helping protect it.
Title: Re: A BitShares Constitution?
Post by: yellowecho on November 02, 2014, 07:23:31 pm
On the 5th of November we shall forever remember the day we formed a decentralized autonomous community of members!

I wonder if the future will ever view this DAC Day in which 101 delegates signed a new constitution like we view US Independence Day in which 56 delegates signed the Declaration....
Title: Re: A BitShares Constitution?
Post by: Brent.Allsop on November 02, 2014, 09:36:20 pm
On the 5th of November we shall forever remember the day we formed a decentralized autonomous community of members!

I wonder if the future will ever view this DAC Day in which 101 delegates signed a new constitution like we view US Independence Day in which 56 delegates signed the Declaration....

Wait, where is it said we are creating a constitution in Nov?

We've got to get the rudimentary voting set up first, so everyone can vote their Bitshares, before we can do anything like this.  For information about our effort to get this ability to vote your shares using Canonizer.com, see this proposal / development document:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uWpw93xlJk3qwqNAaiwvMeQmXkjUt7e8rco17DOP8UA/edit

If we get some help developing this, we may be able to get it done by Nov.  I have some capital to pay for such effort, either in BitUSD, Bitshares, Bitcoin, Canonizer shares, or whatever.  So if you know anyone that can help with this effort be sure to point them in our direction.



Title: Re: A BitShares Constitution?
Post by: Brent.Allsop on November 02, 2014, 10:58:38 pm
@Brent.Allsop:  Please explain the Registration form. Why is "Legal Middle Name" the only required field, and not, say, "Nickname"?

I have fixed this issue by updating the descriptive text, so would be interested in feedback regarding if my fix is adequate.

Thanks for the feedback.

Title: Re: A BitShares Constitution?
Post by: onceuponatime on November 03, 2014, 12:01:19 am
@Brent.Allsop:  Please explain the Registration form. Why is "Legal Middle Name" the only required field, and not, say, "Nickname"?

I have fixed this issue by updating the descriptive text, so would be interested in feedback regarding if my fix is adequate.

Thanks for the feedback.

Your very polite persistence is both admirable and appreciated!


"* These fields are required simply to help prevent dual identity sock puppet cheating. No information provided will be used for anything else. If you check the 'Private' box, this information will never be publicly displayed on any page.

* These fields are not required to register and participate with Canonizer.com. In the future, there may be canonizer algorithms that require this info be provided, and there may be some financial reward offered for participating, so this info may be used for that purpose. For example, if you earn Canon Coins (shares in Canonizer.com), we may use this information to contact you for distributuion purposes if we go "cryptographically public""


Now you seem to have made every field except "Legal Middle Name" required.

I know you guarantee the information will not be used for any other purposes, but data bases get hacked all the time (even highly secure government and corporate ones).

If I wanted to be prudent, and yet still use your system, I would have to make up all the information I input in those fields. If I could do it once, I could do it twice or more times, so this as a sock puppet filter is not effective and not a sufficient reason to require such information.

I understand that you envision algorithms that would require such information in the future (surveys/consensus building based on age or location come to mind). And I am quite sure that you are good intentioned and transparent in your motivations. I am also quite sure, though, that you can no more guarantee data base security than could Target, the Defense Department, Visa/Mastercard, or so many others.  Rogue employees? Malicious hackers? Government subpoenas? A girl with far away eyes?

As one who has always refused to fill out census forms despite both governmental threats and assurances of security and necessity of the information for providing services, I think you would need a new model for the outliers like me (at least until we have attained the non-violent and free association of individuals that Dan has envisioned.




Title: Re: A BitShares Constitution?
Post by: Brent.Allsop on November 03, 2014, 03:01:52 am

Hi onceuponatime,

Remember, this is just a prototype system.  All this identity stuff, is just temporary till we get a more safe, secure and guaranteed verification process of who you are, which we plan on shortly providing with the new Bithsare Vote stuff.

As it says, the address fields are not required.  Perhaps you could, for the time being, just provide one of your Bitshare IDs, so we can all know who you are, until we have this prototype system replaced.  Or, you could, for the time being.  Just provide a psuedonymn.  Just think of this as the temporary test net version for people to play with and learn how to use/design, till we get the real Bitshares verification system wired in.