BitShares Forum

Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: bytemaster on June 22, 2014, 09:21:04 pm

Title: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: bytemaster on June 22, 2014, 09:21:04 pm
I would like to thank everyone who has contributed to the various debates about voting styles.  The delegated proof of stake we have been testing has been based upon the idea that each share gets to vote for or against a single delegate.   That misbehaving delegates could get voted out quickly.

Thanks to Agent86 and Toast for debating this issue with me until it got through my thick head.

I have drawn the following conclusions:
1) With approval voting there is no need for negative votes.  A vote for 101 delegates is just as good as a vote against everyone else. 
2) To vote for 101 delegates would require an extra 202 bytes per transaction, which doubles the transaction size assuming there are less than 30K total delegate candidates.

The voting interface is a bit more intuitive as almost all of your delegates get a vote when you make a transaction.

Because everyones delegate slate could be a unique identifier, the wallet should only vote for a random subset of the supported delegates in each transaction.
To save bandwidth, a slate of delegates can be re-used and identified by 8 bytes.  Wallets can automatically identify existing slates that are fully supported and randomly select one of those slates. 

What this means is that the chain can have a compromise between privacy ( generating a unique slate every time) and efficiency (reusing existing slates).

The changes required to implement this change are minimal.   



Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: bitbro on June 22, 2014, 09:28:34 pm
Bravo! Agent 86, toast, BM, hats off to you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: tonyk on June 22, 2014, 09:41:57 pm
what is delegate slate?
Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: bytemaster on June 22, 2014, 09:44:32 pm
The initial condition is that there are no votes for anyone.
Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: bytemaster on June 22, 2014, 09:45:57 pm
sure...

what is random slate btw?

A slate is a selection of 101 delegates.
A random slate is a random selection of N delegates out of M  or a the random selection of an existing slate of delegates from a set of candidate slates.
Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: toast on June 22, 2014, 09:59:21 pm

I am truly fascinated by the idea of random voting

 … and before asking who is the one who is claiming the discovery of the concept… I should say that  I believe every constitution should be changed (starting with the US one) to require all government officials   to be elected  by no other criteria but by drawing balls (you know lottery style) to determine the vote of each voter…

There will be an option to vote for exactly the set you want rather than random subsets of who you want over several transactions if you want to have no privacy.
Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: pendragon3 on June 22, 2014, 10:02:41 pm
Sorry if I'm asking some dumb questions here. I don't have 1/N th of the expertise of you all here but would still like to understand the introduction of randomness.

Is this new voting scheme totally secure against manipulation and misbehavior?

Why do we need the new scheme?

Is it totally safe to rely on the randomness? I'd think security of the delegate system and the network is of paramount importance, and privacy is somewhat less important  ???
Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: bytemaster on June 22, 2014, 10:12:16 pm

I am truly fascinated by the idea of random voting

 … and before asking who is the one who is claiming the discovery of the concept… I should say that  I believe every constitution should be changed (starting with the US one) to require all government officials   to be elected  by no other criteria but by drawing balls (you know lottery style) to determine the vote of each voter…

There will be an option to vote for exactly the set you want rather than random subsets of who you want over several transactions if you want to have no privacy.

How about allowing the lazy people the right to not going to the polls… too simple and not fancy enough?

This is called the NULL slate and is a valid slate.
Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: bitder on June 22, 2014, 10:41:50 pm
So under the approval voting system if EvilAlliance controls 50%+1 votes then they can collectively vote for the same set of delegates that they control and prevent the 50%-1 share holders from doing anything about it.
It would be great if you're part of the EvilAlliance but not so great if you're not...
Or did I miss something?
Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: toast on June 22, 2014, 10:45:29 pm
So under the approval voting system if EvilAlliance controls 50%+1 votes then they can collectively vote for the same set of delegates that they control and prevent the 50%-1 share holders from doing anything about it.
It would be great if you're part of the EvilAlliance but not so great if you're not...
Or did I miss something?

Under the old system if you controlled 50%+1 you could take control of the chain anyway
Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: bitder on June 23, 2014, 12:10:28 am
The big problem is that under Approval Voting even if you own 49% of the shares you may not get any delegate representation.
This coupled with the Targeted Growth model  https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=5199.msg68575#msg68575
could dilute the minority shareholders to oblivion.
(This would mean that I3 + the top 5 or 10 shareholders would effectively control everything)



Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: toast on June 23, 2014, 12:20:42 am
I need to ban BM from posting without PR review.

We aren't diluting the first chain, end of story. Edit: by "we" I mean "anywhere I have the final say"... looks like me amd dan and stan are out of sync about wtf the plan is

"Randomness" is an OPTIONAL feature for OPTIONAL PRIVACY ENHANCEMENT. Delegates are NOT selected randomly, you just fuzz your votes over time IF YOU SO CHOOSE.
Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: gamey on June 23, 2014, 02:21:16 am

So the first exchange will pay Delegates off transaction fees and nothing else ?
Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: tonyk on June 23, 2014, 02:57:23 am
After cooling off a bit I will try to make a suggestion on wording the above suggestion to:

“Introducing randomization of the block producers selection as a way to improve the security of the system against emski’s  attack”



Emski’s attack: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=5164.msg67657#msg67657


‘Random voting’ is kind of oxymoronic when you think about it….
Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: bytemaster on June 23, 2014, 04:07:50 am
Approval voting has been implemented in a branch on our repo.  Changes were about 400 lines of code total and it is passing our basic unit tests. 

Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: xeroc on June 23, 2014, 06:44:41 am
Approval voting has been implemented in a branch on our repo.  Changes were about 400 lines of code total and it is passing our basic unit tests.
+5%

I guess there will be a new test run for this voting scheme?!
Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: emski on June 23, 2014, 06:48:30 am
I need to ban BM from posting without PR review.

We aren't diluting the first chain, end of story. Edit: by "we" I mean "anywhere I have the final say"... looks like me amd dan and stan are out of sync about wtf the plan is

"Randomness" is an OPTIONAL feature for OPTIONAL PRIVACY ENHANCEMENT. Delegates are NOT selected randomly, you just fuzz your votes over time IF YOU SO CHOOSE.
A PR wouldn't allow you to post this also... publicly stating people inside the organization are "out of sync about wtf the plan is" doesn't do much about the confidence of potential investors.
Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: bytemaster on June 23, 2014, 06:55:44 am

The big problem is that under Approval Voting even if you own 49% of the shares you may not get any delegate representation.
This coupled with the Targeted Growth model  https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=5199.msg68575#msg68575
could dilute the minority shareholders to oblivion.
(This would mean that I3 + the top 5 or 10 shareholders would effectively control everything)

The approach implemented allows each share to vote for a max of 1/3 of delegates.  This means someone with 33% is guaranteed representation. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: emski on June 23, 2014, 07:00:08 am

The approach implemented allows each share to vote for a max of 1/3 of delegates.  This means someone with 33% is guaranteed representation. 


How this guarantees representation for a 33% stake?
Imagine 1000 registered delegates. Top 101 with 66% approval each. The entity controlling 33% stake could never elect his own delegate.
Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: bytemaster on June 23, 2014, 07:06:30 am
Top 101 cannot all have 66 %. If each share holder is limited to 33 votes.   The best they could achieve is 66 delegates with 33% each. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: BTSdac on June 23, 2014, 07:33:27 am
require an extra 202 bytes per transaction
202 bytes per transaction , so much consume of resource , if each transaction must include a voting ?  I mean send a translation without a voting if the stakeholder don't want to change the voting
can the client with automatic voting mode judge if the stakeholder need to change the voting when send a translation.
Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: xeroc on June 23, 2014, 07:36:15 am
202 bytes per transaction , so much consume of resource , if each transaction must include a voting ?  I mean send a translation without a voting if the stakeholder don't want to change the voting
can the client with automatic voting mode judge if the stakeholder need to change the voting when send a translation.
Voting is based on STAKE .. if you move STAKE you need to either move vote or revote!

EDIT: the vote is stored in the unspent output
Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: emski on June 23, 2014, 08:14:28 am
Top 101 cannot all have 66 %. If each share holder is limited to 33 votes.   The best they could achieve is 66 delegates with 33% each. 
Got it! Thanks!

So a person cannot vote for more than 33 delegates with his whole stake. So this is approval voting with limit of maximum votes to 33% of 101 (number of elected delegates).
And the reason for this limitation is transaction size ?
Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: Agent86 on June 23, 2014, 11:03:34 am
The big problem is that under Approval Voting even if you own 49% of the shares you may not get any delegate representation.
This coupled with the Targeted Growth model  https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=5199.msg68575#msg68575
could dilute the minority shareholders to oblivion.
(This would mean that I3 + the top 5 or 10 shareholders would effectively control everything)
This is not a "big problem" at all.  (I haven't had a chance to look at BMs changes so I will assume pure approval voting without limiting number of delegates you can vote for)

It's basically a completely unrealistic scenario, and if true would point to a deep deep division in the community.

For this scenario to be true, you have someone with 49% of stake who can't convince even 2% of the rest of the stakeholders to vote for their delegate?  That's pretty strange for everyone to not trust someone with such a large stake.  Not only that, but this other 51% would have to be super well coordinated in their opposition.  They must find 100 other delegates that they all vote for with 100% backing without any disagreement.  So you have a scenario where a stakeholder with 49% exclusively backs their delegate and then the rest of the network exclusively opposes this delegate and is 100% in agreement on 100 other delegates.  These 2 parties should probably go their separate ways because they obviously hate each other for some reason and have very different views on the direction of things.  If it's one person that holds that 49% they should probably figure out why everyone hates them before the DAC gets forked with their stake removed.

Edit: You also have to understand that the majority (51%) under any model ALWAYS holds the power if they are well coordinated.  But 51% can never abuse 49% because nothing stops the 49% from selling their shares until the DAC is worthless and forming their own DAC.  Don't buy shares of a DAC if you think it's controlled by a well coordinated shady group of 51% owners who you suspect don't have your interests at heart.
Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: bytemaster on June 23, 2014, 12:11:39 pm

Top 101 cannot all have 66 %. If each share holder is limited to 33 votes.   The best they could achieve is 66 delegates with 33% each. 
Got it! Thanks!

So a person cannot vote for more than 33 delegates with his whole stake. So this is approval voting with limit of maximum votes to 33% of 101 (number of elected delegates).
And the reason for this limitation is transaction size ?

The reason is so minorities can still get some representation.   Unbounded is not an option.  Setting the limit at 101 means there can only be a single majority.  By placing a limit to 33 each individual only gets a say in 1/3 of the delegates. 

This hybrid approach should have benefits of both ideas. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: Agent86 on June 23, 2014, 02:48:09 pm
I had never considered the random voting for privacy.  As a user/shareholder I'm not sure I'd bother with it much if it were an option.  I would want the big majority of my stake as a shareholder to vote for exactly who I want.  I might have a small "checking account" that handles most of the commerce type transactions and doesn't represent a big stake anyway so I don't bother with voting.  It would then be hard to tie those transactions to anything else.

The reason is so minorities can still get some representation.   Unbounded is not an option.  Setting the limit at 101 means there can only be a single majority.  By placing a limit to 33 each individual only gets a say in 1/3 of the delegates. 

This hybrid approach should have benefits of both ideas. 
I don't think the "proportional representation issue" was ever a real problem that needed solving... just people not thinking it through.   So if it were up to me, I wouldn't do anything for that reason.

Overall, I think approval voting is a huge step in the right direction.
Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: tonyk on June 23, 2014, 03:11:24 pm
I had never considered the random voting for privacy.  As a user/shareholder I'm not sure I'd bother with it much if it were an option.  I would want the big majority of my stake as a shareholder to vote for exactly who I want.  I might have a small "checking account" that handles most of the commerce type transactions and doesn't represent a big stake anyway so I don't bother with voting.  It would then be hard to tie those transactions to anything else.

The reason is so minorities can still get some representation.   Unbounded is not an option.  Setting the limit at 101 means there can only be a single majority.  By placing a limit to 33 each individual only gets a say in 1/3 of the delegates. 

This hybrid approach should have benefits of both ideas. 
I don't think the "proportional representation issue" was ever a real problem that needed solving... just people not thinking it through.   So if it were up to me, I wouldn't do anything for that reason.

Overall, I think approval voting is a huge step in the right direction.

Sure... It is your idea after all.
Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: muse-umum on June 23, 2014, 03:44:05 pm

Overall, I think approval voting is a huge step in the right direction.

Sure... It is your idea after all.

LOL..
Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: bytemaster on June 23, 2014, 03:45:05 pm
Total cost of this approach is equal to an extra signature on every transaction.   The major win is actually the usability of the system.

The potential cost is the rate at which bad actors can be removed.  It requires manual intervention.

Though I suppose pre-emptive prevention of bad actors is likely better overall.
Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: Agent86 on June 23, 2014, 05:10:37 pm
The reason is so minorities can still get some representation.
I don't think the "proportional representation issue" was ever a real problem that needed solving...

To clarify:
The majority that votes for delegate A is a different majority than the one that votes for delegate B.  The majority shareholders that trust delegate C are again a totally separate subset of shareholder stake than those voting for delegates A & B.

In the end, virtually everyone is part of one/some of these "majorities" and there is no disenfranchised minority.

"proportional representation" mostly has meaning in regard to a political party system and to me seems promoted in part to give political parties undeserved relevance.
Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: bytemaster on June 23, 2014, 09:36:08 pm
Quote
The majority that votes for delegate A is a different majority than the one that votes for delegate B.  The majority shareholders that trust delegate C are again a totally separate subset of shareholder stake than those voting for delegates A & B.

Unless the majority that votes for A votes for A0->A101 in which case the minority is unrepresented.
Now the majority that votes for A can only vote for A0-A33... a different majority would have to vote for B34->B66 and yet a 3rd majority would have to vote for C66 to C100.

Someone with 33% of the shares is guaranteed 33% of the delegates under this approach.   Under the full slate approach having 33% may not be enough to get 33% of the delegates... but then again having 49% may not be enough to get even a single delegate. 

Perhaps it doesn't matter in the end.
Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: Agent86 on June 23, 2014, 10:20:13 pm
Quote
The majority that votes for delegate A is a different majority than the one that votes for delegate B.  The majority shareholders that trust delegate C are again a totally separate subset of shareholder stake than those voting for delegates A & B.

Unless the majority that votes for A votes for A0->A101 in which case the minority is unrepresented.
Now the majority that votes for A can only vote for A0-A33... a different majority would have to vote for B34->B66 and yet a 3rd majority would have to vote for C66 to C100.

Someone with 33% of the shares is guaranteed 33% of the delegates under this approach.   Under the full slate approach having 33% may not be enough to get 33% of the delegates... but then again having 49% may not be enough to get even a single delegate. 

Perhaps it doesn't matter in the end.
As a shareholder I would never vote for A0-A33. You'd probably need a good reason why people should vote for more than one delegate you control.  I don't think there are big colluding majorities; it's too hard to coordinate getting 50% + of the stake together to collude without the rest of the shareholders finding out.  It wouldn't achieve anything anyway.  I expect most people will support a broad mix of delegates who they think have shown commitment to the community and seem like they are not part of same entity/cooperating.

If a shareholder is in the unlikely position of not  trusting or liking any chosen delegates (they don't feel represented) this shareholder is probably one that will sell to someone who likes what he sees.   And that's best for everyone.

What's worse anyway: someone with 33% without representation or having active delegates that 66% oppose?  I prefer the former (there's likely a good reason why 66% oppose and I don't have a problem with majority rule)
Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: muse-umum on June 24, 2014, 03:20:32 am
Sorry, I am an idiot. I still don't quite get it.  Is there anyone who can make a summary here ?

Something like this:

                                  How to vote for & against               Advantage                   Disadvantage
Approval Voting

Delegation
Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: toast on June 24, 2014, 03:24:18 am
Sorry, I am an idiot. I still don't quite get it.  Is there anyone who can make a summary here ?

Something like this:

                                  How to vote for & against               Advantage                   Disadvantage
Approval Voting

Delegation

approval voting:
* vote by giving someone thumbs up, or not
* advantages: don't have to play whack-a-mole with bad delegates.
* disadvantages: harder to get minority representation

delegation:
* vote by giving someone thumbs up, thumbs down, or nothing
advantages/disadvantages opposite.
Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: donkeypong on June 24, 2014, 03:27:49 am
Sounds like a great way to start. Maybe as we go along, people can come up with their own 'playlists' of delegates or union-style ballot endorsement cards. "Click this button to vote for Jake's Slate" or "Purple Party Line Vote", etc. 
Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: muse-umum on June 24, 2014, 07:08:14 am
Sorry, I am an idiot. I still don't quite get it.  Is there anyone who can make a summary here ?

Something like this:

                                  How to vote for & against               Advantage                   Disadvantage
Approval Voting

Delegation

approval voting:
* vote by giving someone thumbs up, or not
* advantages: don't have to play whack-a-mole with bad delegates.
* disadvantages: harder to get minority representation

delegation:
* vote by giving someone thumbs up, thumbs down, or nothing
advantages/disadvantages opposite.

But why am I still able to vote against (set negative trust level ) ?  See welk1n-b *

Do trust level 10, 30, 40 make any difference ?

Code: [Select]
heyddryrun5 (unlocked) >>> wallet_list_accounts
NAME (* delegate)                  KEY                                                             REGISTERED            FAVORITE       TRUST LEVEL   
sometimes-naive *                  XTS5kppbLHPT6JV7aGGXQ3Nu4TvtR1u388uau6Yqv1J9Ni64rnFnc           2014-06-24T02:12:30   NO             10       
too-simple *                       XTS5Def6N9bsueAX2YnvQNKHzbphG1Qx9syKthF9BFFSZZT5EkS3x           2014-06-24T02:12:30   NO             40       
too-young *                        XTS6Kp6598CtJhDVauQwQKVLBZZ34o9W55CR2vhCNRezvKL2KHQtB           2014-06-24T02:12:00   NO             30       
welk1n-b *                         XTS5Q9zjvW6WKBhxYT6oY5qmbywbKv8N4K2HkL8XHYxx41dpDsndm           2014-06-24T03:26:00   NO             -10       

What's more,
Will I get notified in my wallet client if the delegate I vote for has done something evil ?

Can you please describe how we are going to kick the evil delegate out of the top 101 since we can't vote against ? 

Is it still a whack-a-mole game if the evil delegate owns a large amount of shares and can vote himself (another account) back ?
Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: santaclause102 on June 24, 2014, 02:22:05 pm
I didnt follow emskis thread... Trying to get it....

Is the following correct? I can vote for x delegates which will divide the voting power of my stake among the x delegates.

BM said
Quote
A slate is a selection of 101 delegates.
A random slate is a random selection of N delegates out of M  or a the random selection of an existing slate of delegates from a set of candidate slates.
I am sure it is correct but I didn't get it completely....
Is a slate a list of delegates that you can vote for as a whole and using a set / list instead of voting for every single delegate safes resources? But that would contradict with
Quote
A slate is a selection of 101 delegates
because I dont necessarily have to vote for 101 delegates. I can just vote for one or two. Right?

FOR ALL NON NATIVE SPEAKERS THIS PROBABLY HELPS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting
Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: gamey on June 24, 2014, 02:43:29 pm
I didnt follow emskis thread... Trying to get it....

Is the following correct? I can vote for x delegates which will divide the voting power of my stake among the x delegates.

BM said
Quote
A slate is a selection of 101 delegates.
A random slate is a random selection of N delegates out of M  or a the random selection of an existing slate of delegates from a set of candidate slates.
I am sure it is correct but I didn't get it completely....
Is a slate a list of delegates that you can vote for as a whole and using a set / list instead of voting for every single delegate safes resources? But that would contradict with
Quote
A slate is a selection of 101 delegates
because I dont necessarily have to vote for 101 delegates. I can just vote for one or two. Right?

FOR ALL NON NATIVE SPEAKERS THIS PROBABLY HELPS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting

It does not divide in the mathematical sense.  It is purely thumbs up/down, yes/no but proportional to stake size.

Voting for everyone except one person would be loosely the same as giving that one person a negative vote in the previous system.
Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: santaclause102 on June 24, 2014, 05:04:34 pm
Quote
It does not divide in the mathematical sense.  It is purely thumbs up/down, yes/no but proportional to stake size.

That would mean that if I vote for 2 delegates my stake would have twice the impact as if I only vote for 1 delegate??
Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: bytemaster on June 24, 2014, 05:26:36 pm
Quote
It does not divide in the mathematical sense.  It is purely thumbs up/down, yes/no but proportional to stake size.

That would mean that if I vote for 2 delegates my stake would have twice the impact as if I only vote for 1 delegate??

The way it is set up you can "vote" or "not vote" for up to N delegates.   Everyone has equal influence if you choose to exercise it.

Not voting under this system means that the other candidates have less support and thus are less likely to get in than the one you do vote for.
Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: santaclause102 on June 24, 2014, 06:20:15 pm
Quote
It does not divide in the mathematical sense.  It is purely thumbs up/down, yes/no but proportional to stake size.

That would mean that if I vote for 2 delegates my stake would have twice the impact as if I only vote for 1 delegate??

The way it is set up you can "vote" or "not vote" for up to N delegates.   Everyone has equal influence if you choose to exercise it.

Not voting under this system means that the other candidates have less support and thus are less likely to get in than the one you do vote for.
Is there still a default setting for the wallet that votes for delegates which score high in different parameters?
Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: vikram on June 24, 2014, 08:33:27 pm
Quote
It does not divide in the mathematical sense.  It is purely thumbs up/down, yes/no but proportional to stake size.

That would mean that if I vote for 2 delegates my stake would have twice the impact as if I only vote for 1 delegate??

The way it is set up you can "vote" or "not vote" for up to N delegates.   Everyone has equal influence if you choose to exercise it.

Not voting under this system means that the other candidates have less support and thus are less likely to get in than the one you do vote for.
Is there still a default setting for the wallet that votes for delegates which score high in different parameters?

Not present at the moment. Currently, the wallet simply makes a random selection of your trusted delegates to vote for in a transaction.
Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: Agent86 on June 25, 2014, 04:14:10 am
Can you please describe how we are going to kick the evil delegate out of the top 101 since we can't vote against ? 

Is it still a whack-a-mole game if the evil delegate owns a large amount of shares and can vote himself (another account) back ?
Hi heyD, I hope this explanation helps:
the "whack-a-mole" term comes from the idea of trying to vote down a delegate who then switches his support to another delegate he controls and then you have to switch your downvote etc.  This doesn't apply to approval voting because you don't need to actively downvote delegates.  In some sense you are by default already downvoting every delegate that you haven't actively decided to upvote.

Unlike in the previous system, the evil delegate can't vote himself in on his own because he needs much more support to get elected.  His stake is not enough to compete with delegates that have support from the whole community.  If he switches to a new delegate he is starting all over from scratch with no votes and no trust and it will take him a long time to get supporters.

People need to build trust from the community to get elected.  If they then reveal themselves to be evil (or more likely incompetent) the community will pull their support quickly in favor of better alternatives.  You get rid of bad delegates by simply keeping a bit of an eye on the delegates you voted for to make sure they performing well and if they don't, you remove your vote for them and vote for someone else instead.
Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: santaclause102 on June 25, 2014, 06:29:49 am
Quote
It does not divide in the mathematical sense.  It is purely thumbs up/down, yes/no but proportional to stake size.

That would mean that if I vote for 2 delegates my stake would have twice the impact as if I only vote for 1 delegate??

The way it is set up you can "vote" or "not vote" for up to N delegates.   Everyone has equal influence if you choose to exercise it.

Not voting under this system means that the other candidates have less support and thus are less likely to get in than the one you do vote for.
Is there still a default setting for the wallet that votes for delegates which score high in different parameters?

Not present at the moment. Currently, the wallet simply makes a random selection of your trusted delegates to vote for in a transaction.
Where do my votes go if I didn't select / change anything in my wallet? Because you said "YOUR trusted delegates..."
Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: bytemaster on June 25, 2014, 07:20:22 am
You don't vote for anyone and thus by default 'do not approve' of anyone.
Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: tonyk on June 25, 2014, 07:55:12 am
You don't vote for anyone and thus by default 'do not approve' of anyone.

1)-Top 101 delagates with most casted votes 'for' ('for' being the only active choice) are in (for that round), correct?

2)- If you have transaction 'transfer  50 BTS' which is worth 50 votes:
      -if you vote for candidate #20 only, candidate #20 gets 50 votes
      -if you vote for candidate #20,#21,#22 -  candidate #20 gets 50 votes; candidate #21 gets 50 votes; candidate #21 gets 50 votes

That's what I gathered (more logical is #20,21,22 to get 50/3 votes each but I understood it is not how it works)
Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: santaclause102 on June 25, 2014, 09:25:31 am
Quote
That's what I gathered (more logical is #20,21,22 to get 50/3 votes each but I understood it is not how it works)
I guess that would be equal to delegating your votes (old system without the possibility of down voting)
Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: xeroc on June 25, 2014, 11:33:27 am
Upgraded to Approval Voting.
https://github.com/BitShares/bitshares_toolkit/wiki/AYNTK_Voting

Please proof read.
Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: liondani on June 25, 2014, 01:18:23 pm
Upgraded to Approval Voting.
https://github.com/BitShares/bitshares_toolkit/wiki/AYNTK_Voting

Please proof read.



Update your site too on FAQ  ;)
"This consensus is achieved by voting for, or against, a delegate and earn or loose the right to form blocks."

http://bitshares.xeroc.org/faq.shtml (http://bitshares.xeroc.org/faq.shtml)
Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: xeroc on June 25, 2014, 01:25:52 pm
thx ..
Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: muse-umum on June 25, 2014, 03:55:22 pm
Can you please describe how we are going to kick the evil delegate out of the top 101 since we can't vote against ? 

Is it still a whack-a-mole game if the evil delegate owns a large amount of shares and can vote himself (another account) back ?
Hi heyD, I hope this explanation helps:
the "whack-a-mole" term comes from the idea of trying to vote down a delegate who then switches his support to another delegate he controls and then you have to switch your downvote etc.  This doesn't apply to approval voting because you don't need to actively downvote delegates.  In some sense you are by default already downvoting every delegate that you haven't actively decided to upvote.

Unlike in the previous system, the evil delegate can't vote himself in on his own because he needs much more support to get elected.  His stake is not enough to compete with delegates that have support from the whole community.  If he switches to a new delegate he is starting all over from scratch with no votes and no trust and it will take him a long time to get supporters.

People need to build trust from the community to get elected.  If they then reveal themselves to be evil (or more likely incompetent) the community will pull their support quickly in favor of better alternatives.  You get rid of bad delegates by simply keeping a bit of an eye on the delegates you voted for to make sure they performing well and if they don't, you remove your vote for them and vote for someone else instead.

Thanks, much clear now. So how much shares does the attacker have at least to own to make sure he won't be kicked out of the top 101 ? 33%
Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: xeroc on June 25, 2014, 04:06:04 pm
33% ensures a spot as delegate
Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: bytemaster on June 25, 2014, 08:27:29 pm
33% ensures a spot as delegate

After more thinking I have increased this requirement in the latest dry run... no one is ever assured a spot
Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: emski on June 25, 2014, 08:34:41 pm
33% ensures a spot as delegate

After more thinking I have increased this requirement in the latest dry run... no one is ever assured a spot
So you can vote for 101 delegates ?
Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: bytemaster on June 25, 2014, 08:39:37 pm
33% ensures a spot as delegate

After more thinking I have increased this requirement in the latest dry run... no one is ever assured a spot
So you can vote for 101 delegates ?
Yes
Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: xeroc on June 25, 2014, 08:39:47 pm
33% ensures a spot as delegate

After more thinking I have increased this requirement in the latest dry run... no one is ever assured a spot
wow .. +5%
Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: muse-umum on June 25, 2014, 11:42:44 pm
33% ensures a spot as delegate

After more thinking I have increased this requirement in the latest dry run... no one is ever assured a spot
So you can vote for 101 delegates ?
Yes

Why? How did you calculate this ?
Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: emski on June 26, 2014, 05:43:23 am
33% ensures a spot as delegate

After more thinking I have increased this requirement in the latest dry run... no one is ever assured a spot
So you can vote for 101 delegates ?
Yes
Well if you have 51% you will obviously get all the delegate seats unless there is a limit on the amount of delegates you can vote for.
I personally think the limit as a very good idea.
Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: Agent86 on June 26, 2014, 11:17:18 am
Well if you have 51% you will obviously get all the delegate seats unless there is a limit on the amount of delegates you can vote for.
I personally think the limit as a very good idea.
If you have one entity that has 51%, you have bigger problems and you must trust this entity to use the system anyway.  Limiting the votes doesn't change this at all. 51% could control the network no matter what, and ignore votes cast for any other delegates, this is the nature of POS the same way that 51% of hashing power controls bitcoin (if one entity controls 51% of the hash power you must trust that entity to use the system).

Getting rid of the limit is a good idea and makes it harder for bad actors with less than 51% to get their unpopular delegates elected.  If a bad actor gets 51% stake the network must be forked to remove them regardless.
Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: emski on June 26, 2014, 11:28:36 am
Well if you have 51% you will obviously get all the delegate seats unless there is a limit on the amount of delegates you can vote for.
I personally think the limit as a very good idea.
If you have one entity that has 51%, you have bigger problems and you must trust this entity to use the system anyway.  Limiting the votes doesn't change this at all. 51% could control the network no matter what, and ignore votes cast for any other delegates, this is the nature of POS the same way that 51% of hashing power controls bitcoin (if one entity controls 51% of the hash power you must trust that entity to use the system).

Getting rid of the limit is a good idea and makes it harder for bad actors with less than 51% to get their unpopular delegates elected.  If a bad actor gets 51% stake the network must be forked to remove them regardless.

The fork can happen at any time when there is disagreement regardless of the % of any party (5% can fork ignoring the rest and you cant do anything about this).
Even if those 51% decide to fork and separate it is their choice. However an entity (may be a group) controlling 51% shouldn't be given total control over the network.

In the previous scenario when the stakeholders' vote was limited to max 33 delegates an entity with 51% will not be able to get all the delegate seats. Guaranteed representation at 33% wasn't a bad idea either.

That's why I think limiting the amount of delegates you can vote for was a good idea and pyre approval voting is not (although pyre approval voting is better than the previous system). EDIT: This is my opinion feel free to disagree and share your thoughts.

PS: Each sequential state is better , isn't this cool ?
Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: xeroc on June 26, 2014, 11:33:10 am
PS: Each sequential state is better , isn't this cool ?
+5% cool but awesome!
Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: bytemaster on June 26, 2014, 01:04:24 pm
Well if you have 51% you will obviously get all the delegate seats unless there is a limit on the amount of delegates you can vote for.
I personally think the limit as a very good idea.
If you have one entity that has 51%, you have bigger problems and you must trust this entity to use the system anyway.  Limiting the votes doesn't change this at all. 51% could control the network no matter what, and ignore votes cast for any other delegates, this is the nature of POS the same way that 51% of hashing power controls bitcoin (if one entity controls 51% of the hash power you must trust that entity to use the system).

Getting rid of the limit is a good idea and makes it harder for bad actors with less than 51% to get their unpopular delegates elected.  If a bad actor gets 51% stake the network must be forked to remove them regardless.

The fork can happen at any time when there is disagreement regardless of the % of any party (5% can fork ignoring the rest and you cant do anything about this).
Even if those 51% decide to fork and separate it is their choice. However an entity (may be a group) controlling 51% shouldn't be given total control over the network.

In the previous scenario when the stakeholders' vote was limited to max 33 delegates an entity with 51% will not be able to get all the delegate seats. Guaranteed representation at 33% wasn't a bad idea either.

That's why I think limiting the amount of delegates you can vote for was a good idea and pyre approval voting is not (although pyre approval voting is better than the previous system). EDIT: This is my opinion feel free to disagree and share your thoughts.

PS: Each sequential state is better , isn't this cool ?

By limiting the number of delegates you can vote for to 33 you can be guaranteed a delegate seat with 17% of the shares.   You simply give 50.0001% of you shares to 66 delegates.  Everyone else combined would be unable to muster enough votes to kick you out.    So the lower limit actually makes it vulnerable to a much lower threshold.

So if you allow 101 votes, someone with 51% can own it all.   If you only allow 33 votes, then someone with 51% can still own over 51% of the delegates which is the same as owning it all.  But now they can be assured a spot with just 17% of the shares because you are always subject to the 51% attack in what ever group you happen to be in.   So if you allow everyone 33 votes then 51% of 33 is enough to control all 33 delegates in that group and no one else will have enough stake to elect another group of 33 with more than 49% approval. 

Assume 67% of the people agree 100% on 67% of the delegates.   The other 33% are up for grabs and can be taken by who ever has 17% of the shares. 
Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: xeroc on June 26, 2014, 01:09:15 pm
Stick a label to your answer makes it a perfect entey for a FAQ .. thx
Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: emski on June 26, 2014, 01:17:46 pm
Quote
own over 51% of the delegates which is the same as owning it all
I tend to disagree in a sense.
If you control 55 delegates, other delegates will have incentive to expose you (if you are not honest) and/or fork.
Which is different than controlling all 101 delegates.
Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: bytemaster on June 26, 2014, 03:23:53 pm
Quote
own over 51% of the delegates which is the same as owning it all
I tend to disagree in a sense.
If you control 55 delegates, other delegates will have incentive to expose you (if you are not honest) and/or fork.
Which is different than controlling all 101 delegates.

If you have 55 delegates you can ignore blocks produced by the 46 delegates... essentially hard forking anyway, except the masses of installed clients would follow the attackers fork unless updated.
Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: emski on June 26, 2014, 03:32:41 pm
Quote
own over 51% of the delegates which is the same as owning it all
I tend to disagree in a sense.
If you control 55 delegates, other delegates will have incentive to expose you (if you are not honest) and/or fork.
Which is different than controlling all 101 delegates.

If you have 55 delegates you can ignore blocks produced by the 46 delegates... essentially hard forking anyway, except the masses of installed clients would follow the attackers fork unless updated.
Yes. And this will be obvious. Network will be slower. Questions will be asked. Publicity... While having all 101 delegates everything runs smootly
Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: Brent.Allsop on June 27, 2014, 04:39:16 pm

I'm very interested in this topic, but feel I missed most of the context.  Is there a source of informaiton where I could learn more about what all this means to Bitshares?  What is the current methods that are being used?

And what kind of deligation is there?  I like infinite delegation, where anyone can delegate their votes to anyone.  Making large hierarchical trees with significant power to move an large organization on a dime, out performing traditional hierarchies, yet of the leader screws up, his delegated tree of power will vanish instantly.

Is anything like that being used for this?

Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: xeroc on June 27, 2014, 05:20:27 pm

I'm very interested in this topic, but feel I missed most of the context.  Is there a source of informaiton where I could learn more about what all this means to Bitshares?  What is the current methods that are being used?

And what kind of deligation is there?  I like infinite delegation, where anyone can delegate their votes to anyone.  Making large hierarchical trees with significant power to move an large organization on a dime, out performing traditional hierarchies, yet of the leader screws up, his delegated tree of power will vanish instantly.

Is anything like that being used for this?
There's a wiki currently under contruction non-publicly .. to be released very soon!
Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: Agent86 on June 27, 2014, 05:56:22 pm

I'm very interested in this topic, but feel I missed most of the context.  Is there a source of informaiton where I could learn more about what all this means to Bitshares?  What is the current methods that are being used?

And what kind of deligation is there?  I like infinite delegation, where anyone can delegate their votes to anyone.  Making large hierarchical trees with significant power to move an large organization on a dime, out performing traditional hierarchies, yet of the leader screws up, his delegated tree of power will vanish instantly.

Is anything like that being used for this?
To the extent I've considered it, large hierarchical trees are very susceptible to vote buying / influence peddling.  Approval voting provides an incentive structure that allows representatives to put the interests of whole organization/DAC ahead of a constituency.  I think it works well for our application.
Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: emski on June 28, 2014, 01:18:08 am
Quote
own over 51% of the delegates which is the same as owning it all
I tend to disagree in a sense.
If you control 55 delegates, other delegates will have incentive to expose you (if you are not honest) and/or fork.
Which is different than controlling all 101 delegates.

If you have 55 delegates you can ignore blocks produced by the 46 delegates... essentially hard forking anyway, except the masses of installed clients would follow the attackers fork unless updated.
Yes. And this will be obvious. Network will be slower. Questions will be asked. Publicity... While having all 101 delegates everything runs smootly

So you say that if we have a group with 51% stake they should control all 101 delegates regardless of the opinion of the other 49%?
Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: bytemaster on June 28, 2014, 01:19:58 am
Quote
own over 51% of the delegates which is the same as owning it all
I tend to disagree in a sense.
If you control 55 delegates, other delegates will have incentive to expose you (if you are not honest) and/or fork.
Which is different than controlling all 101 delegates.

If you have 55 delegates you can ignore blocks produced by the 46 delegates... essentially hard forking anyway, except the masses of installed clients would follow the attackers fork unless updated.
Yes. And this will be obvious. Network will be slower. Questions will be asked. Publicity... While having all 101 delegates everything runs smootly

So you say that if we have a group with 51% stake they should control all 101 delegates regardless of the opinion of the other 49%?

I wrote a prior post about the law of 51% and that you cannot escape it with any system.  Nxt is even subject to 51% despite their claims.
Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: emski on June 28, 2014, 01:53:32 am
I wrote a prior post about the law of 51% and that you cannot escape it with any system.  Nxt is even subject to 51% despite their claims.

OK.
If the 51% disagree with the other 49% then we have an issue.
In that scenario:

Case 1: Approval voting with no limit
51% control all 101 delegates.
network runs without issues.
49% cant do anything except fork

Case 2: Approval voting with limit
51% controls ~51 delegates.
network runs slower until the issue is resolved (by voting).

Is there another option?
Which is better?
Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: toast on June 28, 2014, 02:05:33 am
I wrote a prior post about the law of 51% and that you cannot escape it with any system.  Nxt is even subject to 51% despite their claims.

OK.
If the 51% disagree with the other 49% then we have an issue.
In that scenario:

Case 1: Approval voting with no limit
51% control all 101 delegates.
network runs without issues.
49% cant do anything except fork

Case 2: Approval voting with limit
51% controls ~51 delegates.
network runs slower until the issue is resolved (by voting).

Is there another option?
Which is better?

Case 2 is just as "bad" as case 1, those 51 still control the entire network and dictate the true chain.
Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: emski on June 28, 2014, 02:08:17 am
Case 2 is just as "bad" as case 1, those 51 still control the entire network and dictate the true chain.
Yes but they control slower network.
Other delegates are not participating.
Everyone is incentivised to find a consensus.
If they want smoothly running network they should all agree on something.

EDIT: As a shareholder I vote for whatever I like. I want my opinion to matter. When casting my vote for a delegate I want to know it will be accounted for even if I'm not in the majority.
Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: bytemaster on June 28, 2014, 02:21:49 am
Case 2 is just as "bad" as case 1, those 51 still control the entire network and dictate the true chain.
Yes but they control slower network.
Other delegates are not participating.
Everyone is incentivised to find a consensus.
If they want smoothly running network they should all agree on something.

EDIT: As a shareholder I vote for whatever I like. I want my opinion to matter. When casting my vote for a delegate I want to know it will be accounted for even if I'm not in the majority.

It is counted in that all delegates are attempting to gain the highest possible approval rating to get in, so your vote matters to all delegates. 

The only time it doesn matter is when a single coordinated individual owns a majority stake.
Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: emski on June 28, 2014, 02:27:15 am
It is counted in that all delegates are attempting to gain the highest possible approval rating to get in, so your vote matters to all delegates. 

The only time it doesn matter is when a single coordinated individual owns a majority stake.

Or a group of people the majority - 51%. Disagrees with another group of people 49% which I happen to support.
I already stated the two options in this case:
1 Network runs as if no conflict exists
2 Network is slower until consensus is reached

I personally think 2 is better.
Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: Agent86 on June 28, 2014, 02:46:18 am
It is counted in that all delegates are attempting to gain the highest possible approval rating to get in, so your vote matters to all delegates. 

The only time it doesn matter is when a single coordinated individual owns a majority stake.

Or a group of people the majority - 51%. Disagrees with another group of people 49% which I happen to support.
I already stated the two options in this case:
1 Network runs as if no conflict exists
2 Network is slower until consensus is reached

I personally think 2 is better.
emski, maybe these address your fears in some way?:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=5205.msg69097#msg69097
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=5205.msg69204#msg69204

Even if the network "runs like no conflict exists" it would still be obvious from looking at the votes that the community is splitting down the middle into 2 opposing camps for some reason; you don't need a slow network to tell you that.

You also seem to be advocating that a minority should be allowed to slow down the network for everyone else if they don't like things.  How small a minority should be allowed to do this?  If you pick 33%, why that number?  Sometimes when you've just picked a number that "seems about right" to you, it can help to think about it more.
Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: emski on June 28, 2014, 04:23:30 pm
emski, maybe these address your fears in some way?:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=5205.msg69097#msg69097
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=5205.msg69204#msg69204
I've read the other threads.

Even if the network "runs like no conflict exists" it would still be obvious from looking at the votes that the community is splitting down the middle into 2 opposing camps for some reason; you don't need a slow network to tell you that.
Yes It will be obvious but there will be no incentive for controlling party to resolve the disagreement.

You also seem to be advocating that a minority should be allowed to slow down the network for everyone else if they don't like things.  How small a minority should be allowed to do this?  If you pick 33%, why that number?  Sometimes when you've just picked a number that "seems about right" to you, it can help to think about it more.
Yes. The number can be adjusted.
I think if 49% of people disagree with the way the network is maintained they should have delegate representation and ability to slow the service down (or other significant way to express this disagreement).
The delegates shouldn't resort to such extreme measures even if a conflict arises (they will lose support anyway in this case). But the sole fact that this is possible should be enough incentive for all 101 delegates to reach a consensus.

I think that if a group gathers 51% stake and collects all the taxes from the other 49% (why not double or triple) the miniority group should have options other than forking.
I believe that delegate representation for minority (above certain %) groups should be granted.
Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: Agent86 on June 28, 2014, 05:22:49 pm
Yes It will be obvious but there will be no incentive for controlling party to resolve the disagreement.
There is HUGE incentive to resolve disagreement.
If a majority group tries to abuse their power, one of 2 things happen:
-The minority sells their shares
-They fork the network without honoring the unreasonable majority

Both of these actions leave the majority with a GIANT loss of value.  How does this unreasonable colluding majority profit??

Their shares will be worthless and there will be no "new minority" willing to buy shares and get abused.

A DAC is a FREE ASSOCIATION of people who's interests are aligned (growing the value of the shares.)
I have no idea how you expect one party to gain 51% of the network at GREAT expense and then just blow it with bad decisions for no reason.

You also seem to be advocating that a minority should be allowed to slow down the network for everyone else if they don't like things.  How small a minority should be allowed to do this?  If you pick 33%, why that number?  Sometimes when you've just picked a number that "seems about right" to you, it can help to think about it more.
Yes. The number can be adjusted...
I believe that delegate representation for minority (above certain %) groups should be granted.
Adjusted how?  Adjusted to what?  If you adjust it back to 1% you have the same system we started with and just replaced - (you're back at square one)
If you wish to propose a change that is taken seriously you must articulate an actual proposal, not just "it can be adjusted."  You must specify something and defend its logic.
Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: emski on June 28, 2014, 05:47:32 pm
There is HUGE incentive to resolve disagreement.
If a majority group tries to abuse their power, one of 2 things happen:
-The minority sells their shares
-They fork the network without honoring the unreasonable majority
Both of these actions leave the majority with a GIANT loss of value.  How does this unreasonable colluding majority profit??
Their shares will be worthless and there will be no "new minority" willing to buy shares and get abused.
My idea was to resolve disagreements without forking.

If the majority (51%) adjusts the rules at will they can set share price at will (changing rules). So when they begin abusing the system share value will be lower and these 49% already lost value. Even if they sell everything at lower prices the majority may readjust the rules again...

Adjusted how?  Adjusted to what?  If you adjust it back to 1% you have the same system we started with and just replaced - (you're back at square one)
If you wish to propose a change that is taken seriously you must articulate an actual proposal, not just "it can be adjusted."  You must specify something and defend its logic.
1% is too low. I was thinking about something in range 10% - 30% but the exact number should be further discussed.

Must I specify something? I was trying to express the idea that drives me to propose these changes. The actual values are not of significant importance until the idea is accepted/approved.
Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: Agent86 on June 28, 2014, 06:03:20 pm
If the majority (51%) adjusts the rules at will they can set share price at will.
I'm not understanding this
Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: emski on June 28, 2014, 06:20:19 pm
If the majority (51%) adjusts the rules at will they can set share price at will.
I'm not understanding this

For example in the scenario where 51% while controlling 101 delegates adjust transaction taxes for the remaining 49%.
This should automatically lower the prices of ALL shares.
And enables "the 51%" the ability to increase taxes exclusively for "the 49%".
Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: Agent86 on June 28, 2014, 06:37:18 pm
If the majority (51%) adjusts the rules at will they can set share price at will.
I'm not understanding this

For example in the scenario where 51% while controlling 101 delegates adjust transaction taxes for the remaining 49%.
This should automatically lower the prices of ALL shares.
And enables "the 51%" the ability to increase taxes exclusively for "the 49%".
Ok, so that basically makes everyone's shares instantly worthless, until a new chain/fork is started with the 51% stake removed so trust/integrity is restored.  Why would the 51% do that to themselves?  How do they gain anything?
Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: emski on June 28, 2014, 06:44:37 pm
If the majority (51%) adjusts the rules at will they can set share price at will.
I'm not understanding this

For example in the scenario where 51% while controlling 101 delegates adjust transaction taxes for the remaining 49%.
This should automatically lower the prices of ALL shares.
And enables "the 51%" the ability to increase taxes exclusively for "the 49%".
Ok, so that basically makes everyone's shares instantly worthless, until a new chain/fork is started with the 51% stake removed so trust/integrity is restored.  Why would the 51% do that to themselves?  How do they gain anything?
A possibility should be market manipulation: Rise taxes - lower share prices. Buy cheap shares. Lower taxes. Sell shares a bit more expensive.

Or perhaps something more subtle - prioritize 51%'s transactions over the rest.
Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: Agent86 on June 28, 2014, 06:52:40 pm
A possibility should be market manipulation: Rise taxes - lower share prices. Buy cheap shares. Lower taxes. Sell shares a bit more expensive.

Or perhaps something more subtle - prioritize 51%'s transactions over the rest.
Either way, it's obvious that an untrustworthy group controls this DAC so no one plays along for these games with them.
Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: emski on June 28, 2014, 07:04:05 pm
A possibility should be market manipulation: Rise taxes - lower share prices. Buy cheap shares. Lower taxes. Sell shares a bit more expensive.

Or perhaps something more subtle - prioritize 51%'s transactions over the rest.
Either way, it's obvious that an untrustworthy group controls this DAC so no one plays along for these games with them.
Ok.
I think it is not obvious. And if done correctly (boiling frog) there will be enough players to buy-in.
However we shouldn't argue over speculations.
I think I've explained my vision which was my purpose.
Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: emski on July 02, 2014, 02:18:17 pm
As I think the topic is high importance I'll compile again few facts of the pure Approval Voting system:

Any group controlling 51% stake can elect all delegates.
Controlling all the delegates enables you to :
1 No fees for your own transactions - even if the fees exist they come back to the controlling party
2 Increase transaction taxes for the rest of the world. - This could be made looking non-suspicious by generating large amounts of dummy transactions (free due to 1).
3 Banning lists of addresses from using the network at all. (while not processing their transactions effectively robbing them of their stake)

I think this will be partially resolved by setting limits discussed above.
I think that no group should control all 101 delegates unless that group owns ~100% stake.
I think that owning 51% stake is different than controlling all delegates. I believe delegate representation should be proportional to the stake owned.

Possible countermeasure to the above is limiting the number of delegates someone can vote for. The result is that minorities of certain size are guaranteed a delegate and point 2 and 3 will be impossible unless the majority ignores all the blocks from other delegates which will slow the network.
Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: bytemaster on July 02, 2014, 02:23:59 pm
Possible countermeasure to the above is limiting the number of delegates someone can vote for. The result is that minorities of certain size are guaranteed a delegate and point 2 and 3 will be impossible unless the majority ignores all the blocks from other delegates which will slow the network.

This is a false statement, limiting the number of delegates one can vote for does not guarantee a minority anything.   All it does is change the strategy of how someone allocates stake and lowers the threshold of attack.
Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: emski on July 02, 2014, 02:30:39 pm
Possible countermeasure to the above is limiting the number of delegates someone can vote for. The result is that minorities of certain size are guaranteed a delegate and point 2 and 3 will be impossible unless the majority ignores all the blocks from other delegates which will slow the network.

This is a false statement, limiting the number of delegates one can vote for does not guarantee a minority anything.   All it does is change the strategy of how someone allocates stake and lowers the threshold of attack.

OK. Does it guarantee that a group with 51% cant have all 101 delegates?

EDIT: Could you explain in more details?
EDIT2: Perhaps more important question are:
"Does it enable a minority of 49% to elect a delegate?";
"Does it enable a minority of X% to elect a delegate?";
"What could we do in order to prevent a group owning 51% stake from taking over all 101 delegates?" (Do you want this? Why?)
Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: Agent86 on July 02, 2014, 02:47:24 pm
The only way for 51% to monopolize the delegates is if they all vote for the exact same slate of 101 delegates without deviation.  Would you invest in a network where 51% of stake miraculously was in complete agreement on all 101 of the delegates they liked and everyone else opposed these same delegates?  Would that be a red flag to you to take your money to a different chain?

You say "no group should control all 101 delegates unless that group owns ~100% stake".  Just a few posts ago you were saying it should require closer to a 10-30% coordinated minority to guarantee representation.
Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: emski on July 02, 2014, 02:56:29 pm
The only way for 51% to monopolize the delegates is if they all vote for the exact same slate of 101 delegates without deviation.  Would you invest in a network where 51% of stake miraculously was in complete agreement on all 101 of the delegates they liked and everyone else opposed these same delegates?  Would that be a red flag to you to take your money to a different chain?

It will not be that easy to tell if these 51% act in complete agreement.
There is no need for the remaining 49% to oppose these delegates. The 49%'s opinion doesn't matter in this case.
The ability for a group of people collectively owning 51% stake to control the network is a red flag for me.

You say "no group should control all 101 delegates unless that group owns ~100% stake".  Just a few posts ago you were saying it should require closer to a 10-30% coordinated minority to guarantee representation.
Do you see contradiction here?
Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: Agent86 on July 02, 2014, 03:01:06 pm
It will not be that easy to tell if these 51% act in complete agreement.
Yes it will; the voting record is public.

You say "no group should control all 101 delegates unless that group owns ~100% stake".  Just a few posts ago you were saying it should require closer to a 10-30% coordinated minority to guarantee representation.
Do you see contradiction here?
Yes, these 2 statements you have made are completely contradictory.
Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: emski on July 02, 2014, 03:11:38 pm
It will not be that easy to tell if these 51% act in complete agreement.
Yes it will; the voting record is public.

You say "no group should control all 101 delegates unless that group owns ~100% stake".  Just a few posts ago you were saying it should require closer to a 10-30% coordinated minority to guarantee representation.
Do you see contradiction here?
Yes, these 2 statements you have made are completely contradictory.

Voting records are public but the agreements are not.

Could you explain how exactly these statements contradict each other ?
Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: Agent86 on July 02, 2014, 03:19:25 pm
It will not be that easy to tell if these 51% act in complete agreement.
Yes it will; the voting record is public.

You say "no group should control all 101 delegates unless that group owns ~100% stake".  Just a few posts ago you were saying it should require closer to a 10-30% coordinated minority to guarantee representation.
Do you see contradiction here?
Yes, these 2 statements you have made are completely contradictory.

Voting records are public but the agreements are not.

Could you explain how exactly these statements contradict each other ?
The agreements are also public.  You know specifically which stake is voting for which delegates (this is additional info above knowing the total votes for each delegate.)  If 2 delegates both have 50% support you can tell whether it's the same shareholders voting for both these delegates or if it is different shareholders voting for each delegate.

The statements contradict each other because if it takes a coordinated 30% to guarantee representation then by simple logic a 71% majority can control 100% of delegates.
Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: emski on July 03, 2014, 11:32:17 am
Well if you have 51% you will obviously get all the delegate seats unless there is a limit on the amount of delegates you can vote for.
I personally think the limit as a very good idea.
If you have one entity that has 51%, you have bigger problems and you must trust this entity to use the system anyway.  Limiting the votes doesn't change this at all. 51% could control the network no matter what, and ignore votes cast for any other delegates, this is the nature of POS the same way that 51% of hashing power controls bitcoin (if one entity controls 51% of the hash power you must trust that entity to use the system).

Getting rid of the limit is a good idea and makes it harder for bad actors with less than 51% to get their unpopular delegates elected.  If a bad actor gets 51% stake the network must be forked to remove them regardless.

The fork can happen at any time when there is disagreement regardless of the % of any party (5% can fork ignoring the rest and you cant do anything about this).
Even if those 51% decide to fork and separate it is their choice. However an entity (may be a group) controlling 51% shouldn't be given total control over the network.

In the previous scenario when the stakeholders' vote was limited to max 33 delegates an entity with 51% will not be able to get all the delegate seats. Guaranteed representation at 33% wasn't a bad idea either.

That's why I think limiting the amount of delegates you can vote for was a good idea and pyre approval voting is not (although pyre approval voting is better than the previous system). EDIT: This is my opinion feel free to disagree and share your thoughts.

PS: Each sequential state is better , isn't this cool ?

By limiting the number of delegates you can vote for to 33 you can be guaranteed a delegate seat with 17% of the shares.   You simply give 50.0001% of you shares to 66 delegates.  Everyone else combined would be unable to muster enough votes to kick you out.    So the lower limit actually makes it vulnerable to a much lower threshold.

So if you allow 101 votes, someone with 51% can own it all.   If you only allow 33 votes, then someone with 51% can still own over 51% of the delegates which is the same as owning it all.  But now they can be assured a spot with just 17% of the shares because you are always subject to the 51% attack in what ever group you happen to be in.   So if you allow everyone 33 votes then 51% of 33 is enough to control all 33 delegates in that group and no one else will have enough stake to elect another group of 33 with more than 49% approval. 

Assume 67% of the people agree 100% on 67% of the delegates.   The other 33% are up for grabs and can be taken by who ever has 17% of the shares.

I think I understood your concerns and why you don't want the limit in that form.
I agree it might give 17% shareholder too much delegates. And changing the limit just changes these 17% (51 delegates limit would give someone with 25% stake control over 50 delegates)

What about decreasing the vote weight of people who have already elected delegates by 1% per delegate?
This should prevent groups with 51% to elect all the delegates.

Consider these elections:

1 Order delegates by pure Approval Voting
2 Pick the highest voted delegate and mark it as elected.
3 Multiply the vote weight of everyone who voted for the delegate from 2. by (NUMBER_OF_DELEGATES-1)/NUMBER_OF_DELEGATES (should be around -1%)
4 If not all delegates are elected continue from 1 (accounting for 3)

This should prevent anyone from taking up all delegate seats.
Any thoughts?
Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: emski on July 04, 2014, 05:49:16 am
Any comments on the above ?
Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: bytemaster on July 04, 2014, 07:47:13 pm
Initial thoughts are that it would be computationally expensive.  But I haven't thought too much about it yet.
Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: emski on July 04, 2014, 10:33:49 pm
Well its generally needed once every 101 blocks when ordering delegates.
Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: santaclause102 on July 24, 2014, 08:28:29 pm
Well if you have 51% you will obviously get all the delegate seats unless there is a limit on the amount of delegates you can vote for.
I personally think the limit as a very good idea.
If you have one entity that has 51%, you have bigger problems and you must trust this entity to use the system anyway.  Limiting the votes doesn't change this at all. 51% could control the network no matter what, and ignore votes cast for any other delegates, this is the nature of POS the same way that 51% of hashing power controls bitcoin (if one entity controls 51% of the hash power you must trust that entity to use the system).

Getting rid of the limit is a good idea and makes it harder for bad actors with less than 51% to get their unpopular delegates elected.  If a bad actor gets 51% stake the network must be forked to remove them regardless.

The fork can happen at any time when there is disagreement regardless of the % of any party (5% can fork ignoring the rest and you cant do anything about this).
Even if those 51% decide to fork and separate it is their choice. However an entity (may be a group) controlling 51% shouldn't be given total control over the network.

In the previous scenario when the stakeholders' vote was limited to max 33 delegates an entity with 51% will not be able to get all the delegate seats. Guaranteed representation at 33% wasn't a bad idea either.

That's why I think limiting the amount of delegates you can vote for was a good idea and pyre approval voting is not (although pyre approval voting is better than the previous system). EDIT: This is my opinion feel free to disagree and share your thoughts.

PS: Each sequential state is better , isn't this cool ?

By limiting the number of delegates you can vote for to 33 you can be guaranteed a delegate seat with 17% of the shares.   You simply give 50.0001% of you shares to 66 delegates.  Everyone else combined would be unable to muster enough votes to kick you out.    So the lower limit actually makes it vulnerable to a much lower threshold.

So if you allow 101 votes, someone with 51% can own it all.   If you only allow 33 votes, then someone with 51% can still own over 51% of the delegates which is the same as owning it all.  But now they can be assured a spot with just 17% of the shares because you are always subject to the 51% attack in what ever group you happen to be in.   So if you allow everyone 33 votes then 51% of 33 is enough to control all 33 delegates in that group and no one else will have enough stake to elect another group of 33 with more than 49% approval. 

Assume 67% of the people agree 100% on 67% of the delegates.   The other 33% are up for grabs and can be taken by who ever has 17% of the shares.
Somewhere else (dont remember where) it was said that the 33 limit is not in place. The wiki still says
Quote
Currently each share can vote for a max of 1/3 of the amount of active delegates in any round (currently 101 / 3 = 33)
What is correct?
Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: bytemaster on July 24, 2014, 09:02:38 pm
Each share can vote for 101
Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: santaclause102 on July 24, 2014, 09:21:34 pm
Each share can vote for 101
Couldn't edit it on the wiki..
Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: vikram on July 24, 2014, 09:27:27 pm
Each share can always vote for 101 in the blockchain.

If you choose to use the vote_random strategy when transferring, it will limit your transfer to a slate size of at most 33 for increased privacy.
Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: santaclause102 on July 24, 2014, 09:38:02 pm
Ok. So if I do that no one can see (except the delegates that received the vote?) who I voted for?
Why is the option called "random" or can I not select who I vote for?
Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: bytemaster on July 24, 2014, 09:40:02 pm
Ok. So if I do that no one can see (except the delegates that received the vote?) who I voted for?
Why is the option called "random" or can I not select who I vote for?

Everyone sees who the shares voted for, but no one can link two of your transactions simply because they voted for the same unique set of delegates.
Title: Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
Post by: santaclause102 on September 02, 2014, 09:57:45 pm
With delegation voting, in order to get rid of that bad stack (no more whack-a-mole anymore) there would have to be a hard fork which doesn't honor his stake right?