Are you saying that delegate voting should instead change to each independent proposal voting?   Or the Bitshares user interface should be expanded so that delegate's proposals are shown and with great detail?

Should I add an explicit "no" option?
The point is I'm trying to demonstrate that delegates fail as a proposal proxy, so I want it to both be fair and still support my point when we fail to reach a conclusion

Quote from: vikram on February 05, 2015, 10:40:18 PM

Quote from: skyscraperfarms on February 05, 2015, 08:43:45 PM
You would miss blocks until you are voted out if you take it offline. Doesn't this cause problems? Security, forking, transaction times... Etc.? If we had this happening frequently and with multiple delegates, this couldn't be a good thing, right?

After 0.6.x, active delegates can retract their accounts in order to instantly (at the start of the next round) be removed from the active 101.

Marvelous!

Quote from: skyscraperfarms on February 05, 2015, 08:43:45 PM
You would miss blocks until you are voted out if you take it offline. Doesn't this cause problems? Security, forking, transaction times... Etc.? If we had this happening frequently and with multiple delegates, this couldn't be a good thing, right?

After 0.6.x, active delegates can retract their accounts in order to instantly (at the start of the next round) be removed from the active 101.

Quote from: Chronos on February 05, 2015, 09:33:47 PM
If this delegate "delegate-proposal-proxy-test.misc.nikolai" is not voted in, no differentiation is made between people who completely missed the memo, and active members like Ander who explicitly abstained.

Well, I'm pretty sure that a delegate 'proposal' like this is not going to get voted in, because this would all have to get translated into chinese, and then get a campaign going to vote it in in chinese, before it would get enough votes.  (I'm pretty sure the chinese community actually outnumbers us). 

As you said, it would be nice to distinguish between not just 'yes' and 'no', but also 'didnt vote'.  Critical community issues shouldnt be decided by a small number of votes that couldnt elect a delegate.


Voting is a feature that several of our competitors already have, and thus should be a mid term priority once the high priority targets of light wallets, stable release, etc are done. 
I would put prediction markets in the same tier of priority as well.  But if voting would be faster to implement then prediction markets it would probably come first.

Quote from: Chronos on February 05, 2015, 09:33:47 PM
We're using a delegate to stand in as a proposal to propose proposal voting!  :P

If this delegate "delegate-proposal-proxy-test.misc.nikolai" is not voted in, no differentiation is made between people who completely missed the memo, and active members like Ander who explicitly abstained.

NuBits has the same problem. As more and more diverse holders become absent voters, it becomes more and more difficult to approve anything (which requires 51%). With delegates, at least, you don't need 51% of stake voting "yes" to be approved -- you just need more votes than the other candidates receive.

The idea in this thread is called "motions" in NuBits, and already exists on that blockchain, but with the above-mentioned issue. I would recommend "yes, no, abstain" as three distinct voting states, though then it's not clear how to determine final approval. 3% yes, 1% no, 96% abstain does not sound like the final will of the voters.

That said, the simple fact that this thread exists shows that proposal voting is needed. We're using a delegate to stand in as a proposal to propose proposal voting!  :P

I like that we are testing things by doing them and seeing what happens.


To me, voting on proposals seems like an excellent feature to work on during the next round of features, after 1.0 release.  Given that this is where you would prioritize it, I agree with you and thus won't vote for this delegate.

I also like the prediction market ideas and think we should add that in time as well.

Quote from: toast on February 05, 2015, 08:58:14 PM

Quote from: delulo on February 05, 2015, 08:55:47 PM

Quote from: toast on February 05, 2015, 08:46:19 PM

Quote from: delulo on February 05, 2015, 08:44:14 PM
So you want shareholders to vote this del. in if they think delegate based polls are adequate and not vote him in if the want  proposal-based governance?

Many, like me, probably didn't follow the discussion so it is not completely obvious from what you wrote.

Correct

And when does this poll then count as successful (pro delegate based polls) and why? It should be more than half of all voting stake (more than half of all stake is not practical). How can this be measured?

Great question, can you first answer how that is supposed to work for the more general case of delegates-as-proposals? My guess is the best way is "if it's not voted in within X days, that's a no".

Those questions referred to the delegates-as-proposals :) I do not know the final answer. If we knew how much stake is voting in total (and if we knew how much stake voted for the proposal delegate which we do) then we can say how much % of "active shareholders" voted for the proposal.

With non delegate based polls there could be another voting mechanism: Counts votes for the proposal and against it. This is different from the delegate based polls because with del. based polls we don't know how many are against the proposal and how many just didn't see the proposal or have no opinion.

Quote from: toast on February 05, 2015, 08:58:14 PM

Quote from: delulo on February 05, 2015, 08:55:47 PM

Quote from: toast on February 05, 2015, 08:46:19 PM

Quote from: delulo on February 05, 2015, 08:44:14 PM
So you want shareholders to vote this del. in if they think delegate based polls are adequate and not vote him in if the want  proposal-based governance?

Many, like me, probably didn't follow the discussion so it is not completely obvious from what you wrote.

Correct

And when does this poll then count as successful (pro delegate based polls) and why? It should be more than half of all voting stake (more than half of all stake is not practical). How can this be measured?

Great question, can you first answer how that is supposed to work for the more general case of delegates-as-proposals? My guess is the best way is "if it's not voted in within X days, that's a no".

It's flawed in the sense that non participation is assumed as a no vote. The "no"s would always outweigh the yes vote. You would need a "yes"delegate and a "no" delegate and whatever is voted in is the consensus. But you are then splitting the vote between those participating making it even harder to get actually voted in as a delegate.

Quote from: delulo on February 05, 2015, 08:55:47 PM

Quote from: toast on February 05, 2015, 08:46:19 PM

Quote from: delulo on February 05, 2015, 08:44:14 PM
So you want shareholders to vote this del. in if they think delegate based polls are adequate and not vote him in if the want  proposal-based governance?

Many, like me, probably didn't follow the discussion so it is not completely obvious from what you wrote.

Correct

And when does this poll then count as successful (pro delegate based polls) and why? It should be more than half of all voting stake (more than half of all stake is not practical). How can this be measured?

Great question, can you first answer how that is supposed to work for the more general case of delegates-as-proposals? My guess is the best way is "if it's not voted in within X days, that's a no".

Quote from: toast on February 05, 2015, 08:46:19 PM

Quote from: delulo on February 05, 2015, 08:44:14 PM
So you want shareholders to vote this del. in if they think delegate based polls are adequate and not vote him in if the want  proposal-based governance?

Many, like me, probably didn't follow the discussion so it is not completely obvious from what you wrote.

Correct

And when does this poll then count as successful (pro delegate based polls) and why? It should be more than half of all voting stake (more than half of all stake is not practical). How can this be measured?

Quote from: delulo on February 05, 2015, 08:44:14 PM
So you want shareholders to vote this del. in if they think delegate based polls are adequate and not vote him in if the want  proposal-based governance?

Many, like me, probably didn't follow the discussion so it is not completely obvious from what you wrote.

Correct

So you want shareholders to vote this del. in if they think delegate based polls are adequate and not vote him in if the want  proposal-based governance?

Many, like me, probably didn't follow the discussion so it is not completely obvious from what you wrote.

You would miss blocks until you are voted out if you take it offline. Doesn't this cause problems? Security, forking, transaction times... Etc.? If we had this happening frequently and with multiple delegates, this couldn't be a good thing, right?