BitShares Forum
Main => Technical Support => Topic started by: bitcoinsatan on August 24, 2015, 07:15:53 am
-
-
-
Votes don't live forever. They are not eternal. They are not god like.
Every time you vote, you can change your vote. Remove them from those you don't support any longer.
BTW.. it makes it difficult to take your post seriously when you call this a "murderous incentive"
Tone it down a little if you want serious feedback/following of what you are trying to say.. which I interpreted as, to have votes expire. So if you vote once, unless you vote again in X amount of time, it will expire your vote support.
Frankly.. I think this is a bad idea. I am more in favour of an alert in the wallet to remind people to vote and/or update their votes. Forcing their votes to expire is removing their freedom to choose. With an alert/notice the can choose to keep their votes the same and ignore it.. or take action to update them.
To put it in terms like your post... 'This idea is a murderous assault on our rights and freedoms to have our votes counted! If this is done in 2.0 I a NEVER voting!' << see.. nowhere to go when I start making things out like this. :)
Looking forward to everyones input.. if they dare! MOO HA HA! :D
-
TL;DR: vote half-life suggestion
Delegate 'votes' are actually more like a measure of reputation (think Stackoverflow) in that cast votes are persistent - so not like votes in the traditional sense of the word. The delegate voting system is currently designed to ensure stability by directing the apathetic to vote for incumbents. Whilst this may have advantages, IMHO this would seem to present the danger that incumbents are likely to attain a near-unassailable position (excepting of course those who exhibit negligent/bad behaviour). This is more of a problem than SO reputation, which of course must be explicitly earned.
If the aim is the create an autocracy - albeit seeded by the 101 or so original gainers of significant 'reputation' - then this is fine. However, it would seem to discourage serious efforts to try and break into the magic 101 circle by newcomers with much to contribute. Currently circa. 220M votes are required and a quick browse of the delegates (http://bitsharesblocks.com/delegates) shows that with a few notable exceptions, the majority have been in place since a 4 or 5 digit block number - are all of these current, active contributors?
My preference would be to assign votes/reputation a half-life - i.e. votes/reputation should decay over time, carrying less weight in proportion to new votes. So while apathy may still lead to new votes, newer votes - for more recently earned good deeds/value-add would carry more weight. I think this system would be more meritocratic. For example:-
- delegate.alice earned big votes in the past - way above the 101 threshold, but is no longer active (real examples exist). Even if all future votes for delegate.alice ceased, those historic ones ensure Alice remains 'elected' for some time still. However, decaying old votes would shorten this period, thus allowing new earners of reputation for current valued-added contribution to get elected faster.
Hypothesis: Current/more recent contribution should be valued more than historical contributions.
In reality, with a still relatively new venture like Bitshares, the 'inactive incumbent' issue may not become much of a problem, as I expect the majority of delegates are still very active contributors and deserve their positions/earnings. However, as the drive towards meritocratic governance and alignment of reward with contribution value seems to be at the heart of the Bitshares project, I'd be interested in people's views on this. Apologies if this has been previously suggested/discussed/discarded.
P.S.
Should a target delegate annual turnover be desirable (1%, 10%, whatever) this could easily be achieved in a self-regulating way with an algorithm to adjust vote half-life periodically, based upon current turnover rate - akin to POW.
-
After BitShares would had a few successful years, is it possible that the voting process maybe polluted by the everlasting votes of persons enable to change their votes ? Death, lost keys, ...
Is there something plan to remove the voting powers pf these lost accounts ?
-
I kind of agree with this. Votes should have a lifespan or they should loose power if not "refreshed" after T amount of time or gain more power if they are refreshed every T amount of time.
The best option between those imo would be to reward those who constantly vote and also making a vote that is Y years/months old would be null (3/4/6 months would be enough I think)
-
it's hard to take your thread serious to be honest.
anyways, I'd say limit the voting time to 12months - makes sense to counter some unpredictable events like lost keys
-
It should be a system where someone who took time to make a well thought vote don't have to go back spend time to do it over and over and over every x months. It should be very easy a fast.
I think I might have a good solution to this :
We give a 12 month life time to a vote. In the wallet, next to your vote you'll find a "counter" telling how much days your votes have left.
In the same page you'll also have a "refresh votes" button who gives all your votes a fresh new year of life time.
It wouldn't care when was the last time you vote or refresh your vote. So, when you are using your wallet and it seems to you that it's been a while you don't vote, you go to the voting page and if you are still satisfy by your last vote choices, you just hit the "refresh" button and you are go to go for another year.
You could "refresh" anytime, after 2 days, 364 days or years.
After a year your votes are suspended until you hit the "refresh votes" button (or you make a new vote).
This function would be disable when someone delegate his voting with the proxy voting system.
-
IMHO this would be yet another parameter that can be voted by shareholders ON-CHAIN!!
-
IMHO this would be yet another parameter that can be voted by shareholders ON-CHAIN!!
I agree that this is something that should be parameterized.
Those who are "lazy" should nominate a proxy and those voting by proxy should never have their votes expire unless the proxy stops updating.
This way you can serve those who want it to last forever and those who want it to expire in a manner that ensures that all voting is "pro-active" and that "passive" votes go with the majority of the active votes.
-
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/265
-
Votes don't live forever. They are not eternal. They are not god like.
Every time you vote, you can change your vote. Remove them from those you don't support any longer.
BTW.. it makes it difficult to take your post seriously when you call this a "murderous incentive"
Tone it down a little if you want serious feedback/following of what you are trying to say.. which I interpreted as, to have votes expire. So if you vote once, unless you vote again in X amount of time, it will expire your vote support.
Frankly.. I think this is a bad idea. I am more in favour of an alert in the wallet to remind people to vote and/or update their votes. Forcing their votes to expire is removing their freedom to choose. With an alert/notice the can choose to keep their votes the same and ignore it.. or take action to update them.
To put it in terms like your post... 'This idea is a murderous assault on our rights and freedoms to have our votes counted! If this is done in 2.0 I a NEVER voting!' << see.. nowhere to go when I start making things out like this. :)
Looking forward to everyones input.. if they dare! MOO HA HA! :D
I think vote expiration dates are a great idea. If in some instances the vote expiration or decay rate is random them people would have to keep checking and voting but it has to be user friendly, like how people check their email or Facebook.
-
IMHO this would be yet another parameter that can be voted by shareholders ON-CHAIN!!
I agree that this is something that should be parameterized.
Those who are "lazy" should nominate a proxy and those voting by proxy should never have their votes expire unless the proxy stops updating.
This way you can serve those who want it to last forever and those who want it to expire in a manner that ensures that all voting is "pro-active" and that "passive" votes go with the majority of the active votes.
I agree with no expire on the proxy front.
Those that are non-proxy IMO should be voted on a quarterly basis, with a 1 or 2 week reminder that the wallet can signal to the user that their vote is coming due for an update decision. If no action is taken, then either their vote is completely taken off books or quickly degrades over time by like 10-20% per day.
Most companies do quarterly updates/reviews and so should non-proxy voting.
Or you could go hockey style and do 3 voting periods throughout the year.
Just my 2bts!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
IMHO this would be yet another parameter that can be voted by shareholders ON-CHAIN!!
I agree that this is something that should be parameterized.
Those who are "lazy" should nominate a proxy and those voting by proxy should never have their votes expire unless the proxy stops updating.
This way you can serve those who want it to last forever and those who want it to expire in a manner that ensures that all voting is "pro-active" and that "passive" votes go with the majority of the active votes.
I agree with no expire on the proxy front.
Those that are non-proxy IMO should be voted on a quarterly basis, with a 1 or 2 week reminder that the wallet can signal to the user that their vote is coming due for an update decision. If no action is taken, then either their vote is completely taken off books or quickly degrades over time by like 10-20% per day.
Most companies do quarterly updates/reviews and so should non-proxy voting.
Or you could go hockey style and do 3 voting periods throughout the year.
Just my 2bts!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This to me appears to be the best of both worlds for implimentation
-
1 month @ full strength, begin 1 month half-life decay-rate (with decay-rate occurring per block).
The 1 month voting renewal period is more important when you recognize that it will most likely reward the Bitshares platform, in general, by having the higher amount of full strength votes coming from those most active in the community and with the product.
This is part of elegance that places bitshares on a level above the competition.
-
I am imagining a countdown clock in the top left or right corner of the wallet that will stay at 100% until the month ends and will begin to count down during decay to show the voter how much voting power their votes currently command.
QUESTION: Does 2.0 allow for transaction free voting?
If not, what would be the fees for voting, updating, etc.?
-
I am imagining a countdown clock in the top left or right corner of the wallet that will stay at 100% until the month ends and will begin to count down during decay to show the voter how much voting power their votes currently command.
QUESTION: Does 2.0 allow for transaction free voting?
If not, what would be the fees for voting, updating, etc.?
Updating your account will be cheaper than transfers. Probably just $0.01 with lifetime membership.
-
I am imagining a countdown clock in the top left or right corner of the wallet that will stay at 100% until the month ends and will begin to count down during decay to show the voter how much voting power their votes currently command.
QUESTION: Does 2.0 allow for transaction free voting?
If not, what would be the fees for voting, updating, etc.?
Updating your account will be cheaper than transfers. Probably just $0.01 with lifetime membership.
Would it be possible to allow for 1 free vote per month (assuming 1 month voting renewal) per account? Allowing, of course, for additional vote changes throughout the month - but only charging after the first free vote?
If this can work and avoid network spamming, I think this would be good for the sales pitch and will help avoid any attempts to slander that Bitshares *charges* users to vote.
-
I like the idea of 1 month full strength (so that you dont have to adjust more than once a month to maintain full strength, followed by a half life period. I would say 1 year half life.
-
I like the idea of 1 month full strength (so that you dont have to adjust more than once a month to maintain full strength, followed by a half life period. I would say 1 year half life.
If one of our main goals with this method is to remove stale/non-performing delegates, I don't think we will want anything longer than a 1 month half life.
A 1m BTS vote will still have ~ 250k strength @ 3 months - a lot can happen (or not happen) within that time.
I think the countdown reminder with the free monthly vote would be enough to encourage the voter refresh and engagement we are looking for without stretching it out too long.
It would also be useful if the witness was able to view how many / what percentage of their votes are in decay to allow them the ability to communicate with their supporters via forum/email/whatever .
^^^^This will allow a similar function to that of our transaction referral system does - in outsourcing the incentives more greatly toward the witnesses to encourage continuous, active voter participation.
-
I am imagining a countdown clock in the top left or right corner of the wallet that will stay at 100% until the month ends and will begin to count down during decay to show the voter how much voting power their votes currently command.
QUESTION: Does 2.0 allow for transaction free voting?
If not, what would be the fees for voting, updating, etc.?
I suggest that randomization be used so that within a particular range but not precisely predictable the votes will expire. So in my opinion any time between 2 weeks and 1 month the votes should expire. This way not all votes expire at exactly the same time which will make a person have to pay more attention to voting and vote more frequently.
-
I am imagining a countdown clock in the top left or right corner of the wallet that will stay at 100% until the month ends and will begin to count down during decay to show the voter how much voting power their votes currently command.
QUESTION: Does 2.0 allow for transaction free voting?
If not, what would be the fees for voting, updating, etc.?
I suggest that randomization be used so that within a particular range but not precisely predictable the votes will expire. So in my opinion any time between 2 weeks and 1 month the votes should expire. This way not all votes expire at exactly the same time which will make a person have to pay more attention to voting and vote more frequently.
I think the decay is an elegant enough solution to that problem though, no?
The votes will not expire immediate, just slowly begin decaying in voting power - which should avoid sudden shifts of witnesses when relatively large votes begin to expire.
There must be a balance. If they are bothered to vote too often, you risk voter burnout, imo.
I think that 1x/month will work OK for many and still be often enough to remove stale witnesses.
-
I say make it as harsh as possible, and bring back the yearly haircut on unmoved balance.
We are claiming to be shareholders in an active company etc etc, so we should be active. The arguments against it (these shoudln't move much for all those who are using its store of value), doesn't hold much water IMO. If you want to actively take part in the company growth, buy BTS and actively take interest in its workings. If you're only looking to stash away, buy BitGOLD, BitBTC or even BitBTS, I am sure there would be assets issued or some other masterplan will crop up which will satisfy the store and forget type.
In short, don't try to make it like BTC which people thinks to keep locked away in paper wallet till it is a million a pop. Incentivize voting and penalize dormant balances.
*All this subject to an actual working wallet, not the showpiece which is currently available for download.
-
..make this parameter adjustable within this range so we can continue to perfect
Should a target delegate annual turnover be desirable (1%, 10%, whatever) this could easily be achieved in a self-regulating way with an algorithm to adjust vote half-life periodically, based upon current turnover rate - akin to POW.
Target delegate turnover rate anyone? Those active have nothing to fear as a sensible rate will simply weed out stale delegates and allow in value-adding new blood more easily. This 'dynamism' dial can be turned up or down to taste.
-
I say make it as harsh as possible, and bring back the yearly haircut on unmoved balance.
We are claiming to be shareholders in an active company etc etc, so we should be active.
penalize dormant balances.
easy there killer... BTS is different things to different people... no need punishing me because i am not as smart... i cant type computers fast or good like u and dont have access to them like rich americans do... since it takes me more effort and money to change my votes than u then it is not fair for BTS to discriminate against the poor and disabled.....making votes decay over time is enough of a pain in my ass... we need to strike the perfect balance and then make this parameter adjustable within this range so we can continue to perfect
Ok. Point taken. What's you're suggestion then? What does "we need to strike the perfect balance and then make this parameter adjustable within this range" equate to in your mind??? As far as I'm aware it doesn't cost money to give a thought out response and state what exactly will work for you. Instead, you're spouting out blanket responses without any constructive criticism.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I say make it as harsh as possible, and bring back the yearly haircut on unmoved balance.
We are claiming to be shareholders in an active company etc etc, so we should be active.
penalize dormant balances.
easy there killer... BTS is different things to different people... no need punishing me because i am not as smart... i cant type computers fast or good like u and dont have access to them like rich americans do... since it takes me more effort and money to change my votes than u then it is not fair for BTS to discriminate against the poor and disabled.....making votes decay over time is enough of a pain in my ass... we need to strike the perfect balance and then make this parameter adjustable within this range so we can continue to perfect
This is not punishing, this is simply you using a product which does not meet your requirements. It harms everyone.
As mentioned in my post, there will be alternatives in the BTS umbrella itself which you can hold, like BitBTS, or something much more cleverer (I am sure the smarties over here can figure out something).
-
I say make it as harsh as possible, and bring back the yearly haircut on unmoved balance.
We are claiming to be shareholders in an active company etc etc, so we should be active.
penalize dormant balances.
easy there killer... BTS is different things to different people... no need punishing me because i am not as smart... i cant type computers fast or good like u and dont have access to them like rich americans do... since it takes me more effort and money to change my votes than u then it is not fair for BTS to discriminate against the poor and disabled.....making votes decay over time is enough of a pain in my ass... we need to strike the perfect balance and then make this parameter adjustable within this range so we can continue to perfect
I like Mike Hearn's assessment of how blockchain governance works most efficiently and effectively. Basically, you have one core group of guys, or even one leader in some cases, who make most of the decisions and everyone for the most part just goes along with it and gives their input here and there. However, blockchain governance gives us one, last-resort, fail-safe measure to override the decisions of those core developers if we have to. In the case of bitcoin, there is a network of miners who can override the decisions of the core devs if need be and in bitshares the stakeholders have the power to override the decisions of the core devs, which is more efficient.
I like to think it as insurance - it's something you purchase but hope you never have to use. Hopefully the tree out in my front yard never falls on my car but I'm going to buy insurance just in case it does and if by chance a huge storm comes up and blows that tree over on my car, then I will use my insurance to protect myself financially. It will be a big inconvenience and something I didn't want to have to do in the first place, but at least I was protected.
Same goes for bitshares. As a shareholder I would rather just vote for BM & Co to run the show. They created this project and got it to where it is today, so i dont see any better alternative. I probably won't change my vote for every little change that needs to be made or new feature that needs to be added. However, if the core devs attempt to completely compromise the system for any reason, then I can use my "insurance" to override their decisions along with all other stakeholders. It will be a huge inconvenience to figure out what is going on and how best to use my vote to protect the integrity of the system - and it will likely be ugly and get a little messy, but at least I am protected just in case and we as shareholders can prevent the destruction of the system by a small group of people. However, hopefully things go along business-as-usual and I don't have to take any action.
tl;dr I don't see voter apathy as a big problem, but voters who do not vote for a proxy should have votes expire or decay over time. Most of us will probably just vote for a proxy that goes along with cnx and the vision of bitshares and only use our voting power if serious issues arise. That will be the most efficient and effective way to run this blockchain.