BitShares Forum
Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: bytemaster on October 19, 2014, 04:36:41 am
-
Hard Forks are perhaps one of the most difficult decisions a DAC must make for anything other than a bug fix. The code represents the "constitution" and generally speaking a hard fork should require more than 51% of shareholder approval. Unfortunately it is very hard to get that kind of consensus.
Discussions on the voting thread have shown some advanced market-based approaches to voting that could help the community come to a more "fair" hard for decision with greater than 75% approval by creating a market for votes on particular hard forks.
1) Every shareholder gets a vote and can be in one of 3 states: Yes, No, or "Accept Majority".
2) Every shareholder may sell their right to vote on a particular issue without selling their underlying BTS.
3) Once you get 51% turnout and 75% consensus a hard fork is activated... (it must already be implemented prior to the vote, just contingent on the vote for enabling it).
What this means: those who might be negatively impacted by a hard fork and thus vote "NO" can get compensated by those who would be positively impacted by the hard fork by selling their No vote to them for more BTS. It also means that those who might not "care" will sell their vote to the highest bidder.
So the process for implementing a non-bug-fix hard fork would be:
1) Discuss on forums and get general consensus that it is a good idea
2) Have developers implement it
3) Have delegates upgrade to nodes that support it
4) Have shareholders vote to enable it
As long as this process is in place then the DAC can remain flexible while having "hard coded" limits on dilution that can be changed without violating the consensus with super majority vote.
-
+5%
A win for Advanced Democracy and Direct Democracy.
Greek Democracy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_democracy)
A history of Athenian Democracy the nature of it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_democracy)
If we are Democractic, we all believe in their democracy, the Greeks and Athenians. I may revise my words later on but please denounce me if you believe I am wrong.
-
+5%
-
Me like!
...will think a bit more about minor adjustments/improvement suggestions, if any, but me like! :)
-
It sounds like a small subset of VOTE functionality, implemented directly on the blockchain? +5%
Could we use such a system to vote on proposals such the ones outlined in the "million issues" thread?
Or do we absolutely need to wait for VOTE until we could democratically solve internal "political/social" issues?
-
This sounds more like a firm fork than a hard fork, but I like it. There will always be the option of hard forks bypassing this system of course, but it will be even harder to get support for them when there's a built in system for making the desired changes without that.
-
It sounds like a small subset of VOTE functionality, implemented directly on the blockchain? +5%
Could we use such a system to vote on proposals such the ones outlined in the "million issues" thread?
Or do we absolutely need to wait for VOTE until we could democratically solve internal "political/social" issues?
roadkill *thumbs up*
Whoever is working on bitshares VOTE must come in and consult with bytemaster. This is the beginning of true democracy. Call your press people, get the word out in California or other places in the world.
-
Ah, so that's what it took to get you to agree to delegate proposals ratified by shareholder vote, I had to provide a way for users to sell their votes on the open market! :)
Whatever, I am glad you are more willing to embrace blockchain proposals that change the nature of how the DAC operates that can only become activated if enough shareholders directly approve of it. I'm sure you can eventually be convinced to add other details and conveniences to the proposal system once the main framework is in place.
-
Is the default state 'accept majority'? Also 51% for all share holders or those that participate with yes/no vote?
-
Is the default state 'accept majority'? Also 51% for all share holders or those that participate with yes/no vote?
51% all of all shareholders must have a vote of something other than "accept majority"
-
Got it.
-
Bter and Btc38 holds a lot of them; so that removes a lot of votes. I personally am reluctant to withdraw from Bter due to the stupid 1% fee. I put BTC in without bonus and bought BTSX, and suddenly I have to pay a tax.
-
:) :) :)
I must, not so humbly mention, that I was the one hoping/suggesting that the best new great thingy coming for the VOTE DAC, is going to be the ability to sell your vote...
... I was happy to see my believes, second by... you know who....
... Just to see the totality of the idea, regarding the new VOTE DAC, crushing most of my believes in what is right and wrong... maybe not morally, but in most any practical sense.
Anyway, even without the 'sell your vote' proposition this is a strong move in the right direction, imho.
+5%
Bter and Btc38 holds a lot of them; so that removes a lot of votes. I personally am reluctant to withdraw from Bter due to the stupid 1% fee. I put BTC in without bonus and bought BTSX, and suddenly I have to pay a tax.
I am accused a lot of doing the same exact thing in my life... but reading your posts from yesterday and today - you are truly hard to be made happy by anything, my friend.
-
Bter and Btc38 holds a lot of them; so that removes a lot of votes. I personally am reluctant to withdraw from Bter due to the stupid 1% fee. I put BTC in without bonus and bought BTSX, and suddenly I have to pay a tax.
Agreed. We should confirm with exchanges that they will be on the 'accept majority' side. But how do we trust them?
-
Bter and Btc38 holds a lot of them; so that removes a lot of votes. I personally am reluctant to withdraw from Bter due to the stupid 1% fee. I put BTC in without bonus and bought BTSX, and suddenly I have to pay a tax.
Agreed. We should confirm with exchanges that they will be on the 'accept majority' side. But how do we trust them?
It actually does not matter much... Aside from the general principal that you do not keep your shares at a centralized exchange (aside from for trading purposes), anyone highly interested in voting for/against any decision will move it out of the exchange anyway.
So, if you do care how your stake votes, move it out of the exchange and vote yourself.
In general, I highly favor reducing the requirements for passing/rejecting suggestions (forks in this case) over time.
What I mean is the OP suggest 51% turnout (I call it quorum, but anyways)... you require at least 51% of eligible voters to have cast a vote 'for' or 'against' or 'abstained' , for the decision to be final. (In addition to the required percent, 75% in this case, to vote for that particular outcome)
I simply suggest - if this 51% turnout is not reached after, say 2 or 3 weeks, the turnout requirement is reduced by 10% (or 20% or 25%) each of the following weeks.
-
In fairness, voting should also be held by AGS/PTS holders. If you let BTSX voters decide what happens to PTS, then we're violating property rights or whatever you guys call it.
So at that point fuck it, make the decision, and setup voting to decide purely how much and where the money will go.
Although I guess thats what the suggestion is... create hardfork code, then put it up for vote ? What if assumption about vote is wrong? Thats a big hit.
Agent86 and I have disagreed about a few things. (extra complexity etc). However we have agreed that inflation in DACs is a huge improvement over any alternatives. I would go further to say it is likely necessary to ensure victory and global domination.
The problem with inflation is once pandora's box is opened then it comes down to management. Not a crypto-anarchist's utopia. :(
edit - Rather I suppose that the lack of voting on PTS doesn't really matter, as that value can continue to be there. It does matter in regards to whether others will honor PTS or BTSX for future snapshots.
-
Hard Forks are perhaps one of the most difficult decisions a DAC must make for anything other than a bug fix. The code represents the "constitution" and generally speaking a hard fork should require more than 51% of shareholder approval. Unfortunately it is very hard to get that kind of consensus.
Discussions on the voting thread have shown some advanced market-based approaches to voting that could help the community come to a more "fair" hard for decision with greater than 75% approval by creating a market for votes on particular hard forks.
1) Every shareholder gets a vote and can be in one of 3 states: Yes, No, or "Accept Majority".
2) Every shareholder may sell their right to vote on a particular issue without selling their underlying BTS.
3) Once you get 51% turnout and 75% consensus a hard fork is activated... (it must already be implemented prior to the vote, just contingent on the vote for enabling it).
What this means: those who might be negatively impacted by a hard fork and thus vote "NO" can get compensated by those who would be positively impacted by the hard fork by selling their No vote to them for more BTS. It also means that those who might not "care" will sell their vote to the highest bidder.
So the process for implementing a non-bug-fix hard fork would be:
1) Discuss on forums and get general consensus that it is a good idea
2) Have developers implement it
3) Have delegates upgrade to nodes that support it
4) Have shareholders vote to enable it
As long as this process is in place then the DAC can remain flexible while having "hard coded" limits on dilution that can be changed without violating the consensus with super majority vote.
As bytemaster has said Only 26% out of 51% of votes have to disagree and this loses. As 75% consensus of 51% voting need to agree to destroying bitshares PTS. Is this correct Bytemaster/Dan?
Also BTSX,PTS, and AGS will all be voting?
-
I am accused a lot of doing the same exact thing in my life... but reading your posts from yesterday and today - you are truly hard to be made happy by anything, my friend.
Partly true, partly also due to me being quite busy in my life and work, which makes me post only when I am really ticked off.
It actually does not matter much... Aside from the general principal that you do not keep your shares at a centralized exchange (aside from for trading purposes), anyone highly interested in voting for/against any decision will move it out of the exchange anyway.
My BTSX in genesis is still there; I put fresh BTC in to buy BTSX and then saw the 1% tax. I guess you can say its my own fault.
EDIT: I am also extremely unhappy with how my work is going, and in my private life. I am sorry if its spilling over here.
-
I am accused a lot of doing the same exact thing in my life... but reading your posts from yesterday and today - you are truly hard to be made happy by anything, my friend.
Partly true, partly also due to me being quite busy in my life and work, which makes me post only when I am really ticked off.
It actually does not matter much... Aside from the general principal that you do not keep your shares at a centralized exchange (aside from for trading purposes), anyone highly interested in voting for/against any decision will move it out of the exchange anyway.
My BTSX in genesis is still there; I put fresh BTC in to buy BTSX and then saw the 1% tax. I guess you can say its my own fault.
EDIT: I am also extremely unhappy with how my work is going, and in my private life. I am sorry if its spilling over here.
sumantso it is October, rainy and dark where I live in North America.
-
Looks good. Here is the seal of approval:
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-nifq2OzTsNo/TlBxcYd-ISI/AAAAAAAAFDg/OfMqRaLH3zc/s1600/Seal%252520of%252520approval.jpg)
-
so only BTSX holders could vote?
bitUSD not?
collaterized BTSX could not vote?
-
so only BTSX holders could vote?
bitUSD not?
collaterized BTSX could not vote?
You own an asset pegged to USD, not the underlying asset.
Allowing bitUSD people to vote would be double voting.
-
+5% for the proposal in the OP
-
The good proposals just keep on coming... +5%
You guys are on a roll today. Keep it up. :D
-
I don't think it is feasible to require 51% of all shares to vote given that there are so many unclaimed shares.
IMO there should be 4 states, yes/no/majority/no show
No show votes should not be included in the total calculation of required voting thresholds. Stakes that have been active in the last x months default to majority, stakes that have not been active in the last x months default to no show.
-
In fairness, voting should also be held by AGS/PTS holders. If you let BTSX voters decide what happens to PTS, then we're violating property rights or whatever you guys call it.
So at that point fuck it, make the decision, and setup voting to decide purely how much and where the money will go.
Although I guess thats what the suggestion is... create hardfork code, then put it up for vote ? What if assumption about vote is wrong? Thats a big hit.
Agent86 and I have disagreed about a few things. (extra complexity etc). However we have agreed that inflation in DACs is a huge improvement over any alternatives. I would go further to say it is likely necessary to ensure victory and global domination.
The problem with inflation is once pandora's box is opened then it comes down to management. Not a crypto-anarchist's utopia. :(
edit - Rather I suppose that the lack of voting on PTS doesn't really matter, as that value can continue to be there. It does matter in regards to whether others will honor PTS or BTSX for future snapshots.
I posted a proposal in the other thread that I think might help solve this issue as well:
So here's my proposed adjustment..
Why not create a bitBond/bitSecurity to which 50% would be allocated to AGS and 50% would be allocated to PTS? Since social consensus says 10% should be allocated to each, the bond could pay 10% interest annualized to start with a voting mechanism to adjust the interest rate after the first year. This would simplify things so much because AGS would be semi-liquid which is value gained for them, PTS would be upgraded to a DPoS bond paying set interest which is also value gained..also much greater stability!, and BTSX would have a securitized stable bond to add to its asset portfolio and would be able to simplify its branding which is also value gained. Such an idea would not break the social contract behind AGS/PTS (besides making AGS semi-liquid but whatever) and everyone wins! Thoughts?
Having a bitBond representing long investment (AGS/PTS) as an asset on BitShares(X) would have all the positives of PTS/AGS without the negatives and would allow for fair voting representation of all shareholders on the exchange.
-
so only BTSX holders could vote?
bitUSD not?
collaterized BTSX could not vote?
You own an asset pegged to USD, not the underlying asset.
Allowing bitUSD people to vote would be double voting.
what do you mean with double voting?
today
if i buy bitUSD say 1.000 bit USD aka 45.000 BTSX i am not able to vote
--
my counterpart of shorting 1.000 bit USD aka 90.000 BTSX in collarteral are also not able to vote
so with the creation of 1.000 bitUSD roughly 135.000 BTSX are not able to vote anymore. in the longrun it is a major risk for take overs, because only the passiv holders of BTSX are able to vote and the other part of your ecosystem are excluded.
or is something wrong with my understanding?