Quote from: Empirical1 on July 13, 2014, 03:03:36 PM

Quote from: emski on July 13, 2014, 05:36:50 AM
What about limiting the total amount of votes to max 101 different delegates?
Both positive and negative votes limited like this will prevent 51% monopolising all the delegates.

I think negative votes are good addition to approval voting as it gives more flexibility.
I still believe that owners of 51% stake should not get all the delegates!

I was thinking this too. But I think most companies with shareholders work on 'majority rule' & considering we especially need to keep out minorities that would try to bring 'bad actors' into the system. My thinking now is that majority rule (The majority dictating the majority of the delegates) is probably best.

1 delegate cant do much harm
101 could
giving single group (even if that group owns 51% of the stake) is against "decentralisation".
In the current implementation (at least the way I understand it) the majority will dictate the majority of the delegates.

Quote from: emski on July 13, 2014, 05:36:50 AM
What about limiting the total amount of votes to max 101 different delegates?
Both positive and negative votes limited like this will prevent 51% monopolising all the delegates.

I think negative votes are good addition to approval voting as it gives more flexibility.
I still believe that owners of 51% stake should not get all the delegates!

I was thinking this too. But I think most companies with shareholders work on 'majority rule' & considering we especially need to keep out minorities that would try to bring 'bad actors' into the system. My thinking now is that majority rule (The majority dictating the majority of the delegates) is probably best. 

Quote from: bytemaster on July 13, 2014, 01:23:22 AM

Quote from: bnoble1206 on July 13, 2014, 12:58:19 AM

Quote from: GregGozzo on July 12, 2014, 08:15:46 PM
Maybe time should be involved. Kind of like in Reddit's up voting/down voting algorithm. I believe it works something like this: if a post starts to get many up votes within a few seconds or minutes it becomes weighted and starts rising to the front faster. So a post that gets 100 up votes in 2 minutes will be rising faster and surpass a post that has had 2000 up votes over the last 10 hours.

You just do this in reverse. That way if a delegate is truly a good delegate but gets down votes overtime just because someone wants their position, it doesn't boot them out. Only the truly bad delegates will get booted when something goes wrong and there is an influx of some amount of down votes really close in succession.

+1 +1 +1

This is the best idea I've heard yet.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Incredibly difficult to implement idea.

I am sure I was over simplifying.

Here is a post about how reddits algo works: http://amix.dk/blog/post/19588

It probably doesn't have to be as elaborate as that.

Maybe just implement a "stale factor" where down votes become meaningless after a certain amount of time. That way the downvote is only relevant when larger community actions are taking place.

Quote from: liondani on July 13, 2014, 07:57:46 AM

Quote from: emski on July 13, 2014, 05:36:50 AM
What about limiting the total amount of votes to max 101 different delegates?
Both positive and negative votes limited like this will prevent 51% monopolising all the delegates.

I think negative votes are good addition to approval voting as it gives more flexibility.
I still believe that owners of 51% stake should not get all the delegates!

limiting to 101 ok but really different is practical not possible...

We already limit it to 101 votes. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: liondani on July 13, 2014, 08:15:31 AM

Quote from: bytemaster on July 13, 2014, 01:23:22 AM

Quote from: bnoble1206 on July 13, 2014, 12:58:19 AM

Quote from: GregGozzo on July 12, 2014, 08:15:46 PM
Maybe time should be involved. Kind of like in Reddit's up voting/down voting algorithm. I believe it works something like this: if a post starts to get many up votes within a few seconds or minutes it becomes weighted and starts rising to the front faster. So a post that gets 100 up votes in 2 minutes will be rising faster and surpass a post that has had 2000 up votes over the last 10 hours.

You just do this in reverse. That way if a delegate is truly a good delegate but gets down votes overtime just because someone wants their position, it doesn't boot them out. Only the truly bad delegates will get booted when something goes wrong and there is an influx of some amount of down votes really close in succession.

+1 +1 +1

This is the best idea I've heard yet.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Incredibly difficult to implement idea.

But it will stay for ever and it possibly makes a huge positive difference...
Can you implement this idea in the near future so you "waste" not time right now?
It's seems worth to think about it seriously...

and using the same system as reddit is a nice marketing argument

Quote from: bytemaster on July 13, 2014, 01:23:22 AM

Quote from: bnoble1206 on July 13, 2014, 12:58:19 AM

Quote from: GregGozzo on July 12, 2014, 08:15:46 PM
Maybe time should be involved. Kind of like in Reddit's up voting/down voting algorithm. I believe it works something like this: if a post starts to get many up votes within a few seconds or minutes it becomes weighted and starts rising to the front faster. So a post that gets 100 up votes in 2 minutes will be rising faster and surpass a post that has had 2000 up votes over the last 10 hours.

You just do this in reverse. That way if a delegate is truly a good delegate but gets down votes overtime just because someone wants their position, it doesn't boot them out. Only the truly bad delegates will get booted when something goes wrong and there is an influx of some amount of down votes really close in succession.

+1 +1 +1

This is the best idea I've heard yet.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Incredibly difficult to implement idea.

But it will stay for ever and it possibly makes a huge positive difference...
Can you implement this idea in the near future so you "waste" not time right now?
It's seems worth to think about it seriously...

Quote from: emski on July 13, 2014, 05:36:50 AM
What about limiting the total amount of votes to max 101 different delegates?
Both positive and negative votes limited like this will prevent 51% monopolising all the delegates.

I think negative votes are good addition to approval voting as it gives more flexibility.
I still believe that owners of 51% stake should not get all the delegates!

limiting to 101 ok but really different is practical not possible...

What about limiting the total amount of votes to max 101 different delegates?
Both positive and negative votes limited like this will prevent 51% monopolising all the delegates.

I think negative votes are good addition to approval voting as it gives more flexibility.
I still believe that owners of 51% stake should not get all the delegates!

Quote from: bnoble1206 on July 13, 2014, 12:58:19 AM

Quote from: GregGozzo on July 12, 2014, 08:15:46 PM
Maybe time should be involved. Kind of like in Reddit's up voting/down voting algorithm. I believe it works something like this: if a post starts to get many up votes within a few seconds or minutes it becomes weighted and starts rising to the front faster. So a post that gets 100 up votes in 2 minutes will be rising faster and surpass a post that has had 2000 up votes over the last 10 hours.

You just do this in reverse. That way if a delegate is truly a good delegate but gets down votes overtime just because someone wants their position, it doesn't boot them out. Only the truly bad delegates will get booted when something goes wrong and there is an influx of some amount of down votes really close in succession.

+1 +1 +1

This is the best idea I've heard yet.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Incredibly difficult to implement idea.

Quote from: GregGozzo on July 12, 2014, 08:15:46 PM
Maybe time should be involved. Kind of like in Reddit's up voting/down voting algorithm. I believe it works something like this: if a post starts to get many up votes within a few seconds or minutes it becomes weighted and starts rising to the front faster. So a post that gets 100 up votes in 2 minutes will be rising faster and surpass a post that has had 2000 up votes over the last 10 hours.

You just do this in reverse. That way if a delegate is truly a good delegate but gets down votes overtime just because someone wants their position, it doesn't boot them out. Only the truly bad delegates will get booted when something goes wrong and there is an influx of some amount of down votes really close in succession.

+1 +1 +1

This is the best idea I've heard yet.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe time should be involved. Kind of like in Reddit's up voting/down voting algorithm. I believe it works something like this: if a post starts to get many up votes within a few seconds or minutes it becomes weighted and starts rising to the front faster. So a post that gets 100 up votes in 2 minutes will be rising faster and surpass a post that has had 2000 up votes over the last 10 hours.

You just do this in reverse. That way if a delegate is truly a good delegate but gets down votes overtime just because someone wants their position, it doesn't boot them out. Only the truly bad delegates will get booted when something goes wrong and there is an influx of some amount of down votes really close in succession.

Quote from: AsymmetricInformation on July 12, 2014, 03:43:05 AM
What's true at each single point in time must also be true at all times, literally.

::)  There are things that can be accomplished over time that can't be accomplished at a single time point.  The links are essentially mathematical proofs that describe a very specific situation of "single winner" "single time-point" "instant-runoff (ranked)" style of election.

This is not our system.  Our system doesn't use and doesn't require an "instant runoff" style ballot because there is no need for it to be "instant." In our system everyone can clearly see who everyone else is voting for and vote accordingly, allowing equilibria to be reached.  Another way to say it is having 1000s of elections that compare preferences in various states provides more information about voter preferences than one election.

Also, neither "voting paradox" nor "Arrow's impossibility theorem" is in any way a proof that voting or elections have no utility or value.  It is simply saying that in a very specific situation there are specific provable limitations that might seem unexpected to someone expecting some kind of perfect integration of voter preferences.

What if we build into the software automated voting based on rules. That way majority will just auto vote and do the right thing even if someone is trying to abuse the system with custom made software.

What's true at each single point in time must also be true at all times, literally.

Quote from: AsymmetricInformation on July 11, 2014, 11:37:23 PM
I have some bad news for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_paradox
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem

Neither of these limitations relate to our application.  These describe single time point elections; we vote in real time.  Approval voting works great for our application.