Author Topic: VOTE DAC Just Got More Interesting  (Read 30314 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Empirical1.1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
    • View Profile
If you think about it a system that openly allows you to sell your vote is not as terrible idea as it may sound at first glance. It let's market forces make decisions.
1.The money spent on (mostly negative) political campaigns will find a better use in the pocket of a voter.
2.Voter participation will start approaching 100%
and many other benefits.

It also creates a whole host of problems.  The purpose of voting is, in theory, to allow the candidate which would benefit the largest proportion of voters to be elected to an office (assuming winner take all system like the US).  The problem with introducing money into the equation is that most people fail to account for the diminishing marginal value of money.  For people who have very little money, the marginal value of money is very high, so you can "buy" their votes for comparatively less than people who are better off.  This leads to all kinds of suboptimal outcomes whereby even rational actors will vote against their own interests.  The reality is far worse, since most people don't understand how to value political platforms, and uninformed voters will follow the red herring of money offered for their votes.

Presumably votes like that will be anonymous and so there will be no way of proving who you voted for. So the political party A can pay Bob, 'X' and he can take it but vote for party B instead.

If it is a problem, a DAC also has delegates who can act as gate-keepers. They can refuse to process requests that involve soliciting electoral votes perhaps.

A system where Bob can verify his vote was counted properly is a system where Bob can prove his vote. 
A system where Bob cannot verify his vote was counted is a system where Bob does not count the votes.... thus the votes are meaningless and unverifiable.

The only things the voting system does is make it such that if Bob *wants privacy* he can vote and destroy his private key.  No one will know who Bob voted for unless he reveals it.

Then it seems to me a DAC couldn't replace current voting systems as despite their counting flaws, current systems at least provide anonymity.

Without involuntary anonymity your vote would be dictated by violence not money.

Gangsters will simply demand proof of vote.

Violence is even more expensive than vote buying and if you are being threatened with violence then that is grounds for a law suite and other remedies.   This would be like someone using violence to force you to buy a certain product... ie: protection money.     A government willing to use violence to cause people to vote is PROVABLY corrupt... which is far better than a government that uses deception to claim consent in an UNPROVABLE black box voting.


Wow... it is really amazing how thick the government propaganda is around voting. 

Lets look at how a voting system would be designed for maximum tyranny and see if we can improve upon it:

1) Open the voting to everyone and don't check IDs.
2) Use a digital black box that counts the vote and reports the results.
3) Have no way to prove the button you pushed resulted in the vote you entered.
4) Have the media post manipulated public opinion polls
5) Make voter turn out low by having long lines and occur on a single day during the work week. 

Under this system the public believes their vote counts, believes they can change things, and believes everyone else is STUPID based upon what they see in the media, polls, and elections.   The government has consent and can do what it pleases.

The only way to get as anonymous and "non-provable" as possible is:
1) eliminate absentee ballots... someone using force could compel you to vote absentee so they could see it.
2) use paper ballots with physical holes
3) count all ballots on video and with representatives from all candidates in physical presence.
4) keep all ballots and count all ballots....
5) require all candidates to maintain a voter registration list
6) require all voters to get their blank ballot stamped by all candidates prior to voting (candidates verify uniqueness)
7) only count ballots stamped by all candidates.

As you can see the process is much more difficult and expensive... and difficult to verify.  How hard is it to forge your opponents stamps? 

At the end of the day if you can coerce a statistically meaningful number of people and get away with it, the corruption is in the government and no voting system will matter.

I looked into it a bit more but I think I disagree on this stuff at the moment. (Though I agree there is huge manipulation of information by the media.)

Currently my conclusion is I still believe there should be no way to prove who I voted for, to protect my freedom. Where I think the improvement needs to come is in the counting system. Some decentralised maths based system that provably processes the vote correctly but with it being mixed in some way that makes it hard to link back to my identity.

Quote
Violence is even more expensive than vote buying and if you are being threatened with violence then that is grounds for a law suite and other remedies.   This would be like someone using violence to force you to buy a certain product... ie: protection money.     A government willing to use violence to cause people to vote is PROVABLY corrupt... which is far better than a government that uses deception to claim consent in an UNPROVABLE black box voting.


Wow... it is really amazing how thick the government propaganda is around voting.

Advocacy for the secret ballot system doesn't stem from propaganda, on the contrary governments today, especially tyrants and dictators would love a proof of vote system. The secret ballot system we have today is the result of hard won victories by free people in response to the tyranny a 'proof of vote' system almost always creates. I see the wiki points out that only Napolean really pushed for a 'proof of vote' system since the secret ballot system was introduced in France, I wonder why?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_ballot

Also in many countries while there's bribery, historically and in practice I think you'll find the no. 1 voting coercion tool is violence and intimidation. Proof of vote allows opposition to be systematically removed by more and more violent means until the desired result is achieved. Local government don't need to use violence directly, groups of thugs or supporters not directly associated with them or that national government are often the ones that do the dirty work.

Only in advanced Western countries could a proof of vote seem temporarily plausible as there are centralised well funded police and legal options,  but even there it would cause individual freedom to devolve imo. Starting with the most vulnerable first who have limited recourse.
its simple create a new pub key and use that key to vote you can check that pubkey on the chain but noone else can cause you didnt tell anyone your key.

Yeah it doesn't really solve the problem I'm worried about though.

However I guess it's not my business to decide what is in the best interest of society. The free market will choose what the free market will choose regardless. + I want to be in the business of supporting Bytemaster's vision. DACs are really 'talentocracies' and who is a greater talent than Bytemaster? So I obviously support whatever he thinks is the best option, there is no benefit to doing otherwise, but as we have already seen, much to gain by having a bit of faith.

Offline Riverhead

Just remember reality and physics are unconcerned with how we view things. Keep that in mind when you convince yourself you can fly.

merockstar

  • Guest
Some of you are saying we basically control our reality with how to we choose to look at things, right?

I don't think I agree.

Children are the ultimate optimists, not having been corrupted by negative influences already at work in the world. Terrible things happen to them all the time.

Also, that terrible things exist to begin with is evidence that we don't control things with our world view. If, in the beginning, people looked at the world as children and nothing but good, then how in human history did negativity get introduced to begin with? When did it start to spiral into the world we see today?

Maybe I'm just not understanding.

Offline CLains

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2606
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: clains
I exist as consciousness, and yet my body is flesh - we are in a stage of evolution longing for Elsewhere.

My body (flesh) is ruled by LAW, they say.

My consciousness (spirit) is ALL there is, they say.

They are both wrong for they both leave out all things new. The world is not law, the spirit not subjective. There is no preordained governor of the world, no preordained soul behind our consciousness. Both material and spiritual identity is capable of novelty - freedom has no bounds, and this is the source of both flesh and spirit.

To deny boundless freedom is to subjugate oneself to arbitrary law, but to accept it is simultaneously to accept other realms of existence, for even my own existence is never a necessity, but always a boundless freedom that remains open to radical change and even non-existence. So too for all things.

Offline Empirical1.1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
    • View Profile
I've got a copy of my big toe by Thomas Cambell, read about a third of it, haven't finished it yet.  I have very similar views to him though.

My take on all this nonsense is that there's a limitless super-consciousness that is completely pointless, as well as every other potential characteristic, and utterly beyond description or even understanding, the name Brahman from Hinduism fits quite nicely.  It choses to experience itself as subjective units of itself, i.e. as life.  It creates the ultimate game, the game of life, to play for all eternity as a way to be.  It can probably be something else entirely while also being life at the same time due to existing extra-dimensionally and is capable therefore of knowing everything that will ever happen, because from the vantage point of an extra dimension, this super-consousness can survey the whole game.  But if it wants to play the game, it has to encarnate into the 'mode of ignorance', or 'game mode', where it becomes limited or at least appears to itself to be limited.

While being one of these apparently limited consciousness units, such as a human, we often talk about the subconscious and the unconscious.  I like to say that actually they too are also consciousness, only our 'surface' consciousness isn't conscious off them, even though they are part of the same spectrum or continuum of consciousness. Likewise is the so called 'Universe' or 'dead stuff'.  It's consciousness too, but appears as unconscious consciousness, or we can call it deep-consiousness or super-consiousness. 

This leads me to agree with bytemaster saying that he is the only one who exists, because if he is referring what I'm galling the 'super-consciousness', which is who or what we really all there, then I am that too.

People interested in this should check out Avatarism.  It's a sort of mock-religion invented last year at burning man, using the idea that the Universe is a massive multiplayer game and we are all avatars of a higher self(s), and that we can create our own character sheet like in game, with special abilities, strengths weaknesses etc, and that we can consciously chose to modify our character and 'level up' and collect 'power ups' and uphold each others highest vision of ourselves.  It's a powerful tool for transformational change and I think it's awesome.

I've no idea how this connects to the bitshares issues as I didn't read that part but I wanted to join in with the interesting stuff :p

Yeah I don't delve too much into philosophy but that's kind of how I'd articulate what this experience is. (Immortality and omnipotence is boring & unfulfilling but experienced through the limitations of an individual life be it human or other it becomes purposeful and interesting.)

If I am part of a higher reality, then there is a reason we have been separated in this form. So while a greater sense & awareness of the possible illusion allows you to detach & even manipulate it. It can also remove the intensity of emotion & enjoyment which indulging in it allows, so I try to find a fulfilling balance. (Not always easy on a day to day basis.)

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12922
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
This is water. http://youtu.be/DKYJVV7HuZw abridged version.
Just wow!

Opens up your mind! Much thanks for sharing!

Offline fuzzy

Why do you choose to have nightmares?   Consciousness is deeper than our thinking mind can directly control.   

It takes time to recondition our thoughts on all levels. 

But I can say that I have seen smaller changes happen and we are on the verge of making huge breakthroughs on free energy and free markets.   Why?  Because I changed my view on the world from one where I was going to survive mad max as a farmer to one where wealth was abundant about 3 months prior to starting bitshares.   

Had i held to prior beliefs the world would have gone a different direction.

This is probably one of the statements with which I most identify...and the reason I thank you (all of you) for giving me hope..
Going to war is bad enough...seeing people (and little children) blown and shot up is bad enough (not to mention being blown up and shot at yourself)--but then to realize it is all for a lie--well let's say it makes you think of Mad Max quite a bit (being a farmer would actually be pretty a awesome and fullfilling, if very difficult, life though!).  This tech we are working on will not be perfect the 1st, 2nd or 3rd time around, but if the end product is something humanity collectively harnesses to build a world where incentives align for all people to reach toward higher callings, then my God its going to be one hell of a ride.

Speaking of farming...Definitely looking forward to hearing more about Gingerbreadman's Farming DAC someday!
« Last Edit: October 16, 2014, 04:18:40 pm by fuzzy »
WhaleShares==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits and WhaleShares = Love :D

Ggozzo

  • Guest

Offline matt608

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 878
    • View Profile
I've got a copy of my big toe by Thomas Cambell, read about a third of it, haven't finished it yet.  I have very similar views to him though.

My take on all this nonsense is that there's a limitless super-consciousness that is utterly beyond description or even understanding, the name Brahman from Hinduism fits quite nicely.  It's beyond hyper-intellience, which includes supreme emotional intelligence which makes it's love so powerful we can't even imagine.  It choses to experience itself as subjective units of itself, i.e. as life.  It creates the ultimate game, the game of life, to play for all eternity as a way to be.  It can probably be something else entirely while also being life at the same time due to existing extra-dimensionally and is capable therefore of knowing everything that will ever happen, because from the vantage point of an extra dimension, this super-consousness can survey the whole game.  But if it wants to play the game, it has to encarnate into the 'mode of ignorance', or 'game mode', where it becomes limited or at least appears to itself to be limited.

While being one of these apparently limited consciousness units, such as a human, we often talk about the subconscious and the unconscious.  I like to say that actually they too are also consciousness, only our 'surface' consciousness isn't conscious off them, even though they are part of the same spectrum or continuum of consciousness. Likewise is the so called 'Universe' or 'dead stuff'.  It's consciousness too, but appears as unconscious consciousness, or we can call it deep-consiousness or super-consiousness. 

This leads me to agree with bytemaster saying that he is the only one who exists, because if he is referring what I'm galling the 'super-consciousness', which is who or what we really all there, then I am that too. 

People interested in this should check out Avatarism.  It's a sort of mock-religion invented last year at burning man, using the idea that the Universe is a massive multiplayer game and we are all avatars of a higher self(s), and that we can create our own character sheet like in game, with special abilities, strengths weaknesses etc, and that we can consciously chose to modify our character and 'level up' and collect 'power ups' and uphold each others highest vision of ourselves.  It's a powerful tool for transformational change and I think it's awesome.

I've no idea how this connects to the bitshares issues as I didn't read that part but I wanted to join in with the interesting stuff :p
« Last Edit: October 16, 2014, 04:18:12 pm by matt608 »

Offline BldSwtTrs

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 220
    • View Profile
Why do you choose to have nightmares?   Consciousness is deeper than our thinking mind can directly control.   

It takes time to recondition our thoughts on all levels. 

But I can say that I have seen smaller changes happen and we are on the verge of making huge breakthroughs on free energy and free markets.   Why?  Because I changed my view on the world from one where I was going to survive mad max as a farmer to one where wealth was abundant about 3 months prior to starting bitshares.   

Had i held to prior beliefs the world would have gone a different direction.
Are you saying that the world would have gone a different direction or that the world you are living would have gone a different direction?

I have very optmist beliefs about the future of mankind and technological progress since I am a child. Maybe the fact that you recently have changed your perceptions allowed you to temporarily live in the same fork of the Multiverse than mine.

Or do you think there is no Multiverse, only one Universe, which you are actively shaping (and thereby denying my past and present influence on reality, and even my very existence)?
« Last Edit: October 16, 2014, 03:06:14 pm by BldSwtTrs »

Offline jsidhu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1335
    • View Profile
If you think about it a system that openly allows you to sell your vote is not as terrible idea as it may sound at first glance. It let's market forces make decisions.
1.The money spent on (mostly negative) political campaigns will find a better use in the pocket of a voter.
2.Voter participation will start approaching 100%
and many other benefits.

It also creates a whole host of problems.  The purpose of voting is, in theory, to allow the candidate which would benefit the largest proportion of voters to be elected to an office (assuming winner take all system like the US).  The problem with introducing money into the equation is that most people fail to account for the diminishing marginal value of money.  For people who have very little money, the marginal value of money is very high, so you can "buy" their votes for comparatively less than people who are better off.  This leads to all kinds of suboptimal outcomes whereby even rational actors will vote against their own interests.  The reality is far worse, since most people don't understand how to value political platforms, and uninformed voters will follow the red herring of money offered for their votes.

Presumably votes like that will be anonymous and so there will be no way of proving who you voted for. So the political party A can pay Bob, 'X' and he can take it but vote for party B instead.

If it is a problem, a DAC also has delegates who can act as gate-keepers. They can refuse to process requests that involve soliciting electoral votes perhaps.

A system where Bob can verify his vote was counted properly is a system where Bob can prove his vote. 
A system where Bob cannot verify his vote was counted is a system where Bob does not count the votes.... thus the votes are meaningless and unverifiable.

The only things the voting system does is make it such that if Bob *wants privacy* he can vote and destroy his private key.  No one will know who Bob voted for unless he reveals it.

Then it seems to me a DAC couldn't replace current voting systems as despite their counting flaws, current systems at least provide anonymity.

Without involuntary anonymity your vote would be dictated by violence not money.

Gangsters will simply demand proof of vote.

Violence is even more expensive than vote buying and if you are being threatened with violence then that is grounds for a law suite and other remedies.   This would be like someone using violence to force you to buy a certain product... ie: protection money.     A government willing to use violence to cause people to vote is PROVABLY corrupt... which is far better than a government that uses deception to claim consent in an UNPROVABLE black box voting.


Wow... it is really amazing how thick the government propaganda is around voting. 

Lets look at how a voting system would be designed for maximum tyranny and see if we can improve upon it:

1) Open the voting to everyone and don't check IDs.
2) Use a digital black box that counts the vote and reports the results.
3) Have no way to prove the button you pushed resulted in the vote you entered.
4) Have the media post manipulated public opinion polls
5) Make voter turn out low by having long lines and occur on a single day during the work week. 

Under this system the public believes their vote counts, believes they can change things, and believes everyone else is STUPID based upon what they see in the media, polls, and elections.   The government has consent and can do what it pleases.

The only way to get as anonymous and "non-provable" as possible is:
1) eliminate absentee ballots... someone using force could compel you to vote absentee so they could see it.
2) use paper ballots with physical holes
3) count all ballots on video and with representatives from all candidates in physical presence.
4) keep all ballots and count all ballots....
5) require all candidates to maintain a voter registration list
6) require all voters to get their blank ballot stamped by all candidates prior to voting (candidates verify uniqueness)
7) only count ballots stamped by all candidates.

As you can see the process is much more difficult and expensive... and difficult to verify.  How hard is it to forge your opponents stamps? 

At the end of the day if you can coerce a statistically meaningful number of people and get away with it, the corruption is in the government and no voting system will matter.

I looked into it a bit more but I think I disagree on this stuff at the moment. (Though I agree there is huge manipulation of information by the media.)

Currently my conclusion is I still believe there should be no way to prove who I voted for, to protect my freedom. Where I think the improvement needs to come is in the counting system. Some decentralised maths based system that provably processes the vote correctly but with it being mixed in some way that makes it hard to link back to my identity.

Quote
Violence is even more expensive than vote buying and if you are being threatened with violence then that is grounds for a law suite and other remedies.   This would be like someone using violence to force you to buy a certain product... ie: protection money.     A government willing to use violence to cause people to vote is PROVABLY corrupt... which is far better than a government that uses deception to claim consent in an UNPROVABLE black box voting.


Wow... it is really amazing how thick the government propaganda is around voting.

Advocacy for the secret ballot system doesn't stem from propaganda, on the contrary governments today, especially tyrants and dictators would love a proof of vote system. The secret ballot system we have today is the result of hard won victories by free people in response to the tyranny a 'proof of vote' system almost always creates. I see the wiki points out that only Napolean really pushed for a 'proof of vote' system since the secret ballot system was introduced in France, I wonder why?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_ballot

Also in many countries while there's bribery, historically and in practice I think you'll find the no. 1 voting coercion tool is violence and intimidation. Proof of vote allows opposition to be systematically removed by more and more violent means until the desired result is achieved. Local government don't need to use violence directly, groups of thugs or supporters not directly associated with them or that national government are often the ones that do the dirty work.

Only in advanced Western countries could a proof of vote seem temporarily plausible as there are centralised well funded police and legal options,  but even there it would cause individual freedom to devolve imo. Starting with the most vulnerable first who have limited recourse.
its simple create a new pub key and use that key to vote you can check that pubkey on the chain but noone else can cause you didnt tell anyone your key.
Hired by blockchain | Developer
delegate: dev.sidhujag

Offline bytemaster

Why do you choose to have nightmares?   Consciousness is deeper than our thinking mind can directly control.   

It takes time to recondition our thoughts on all levels. 

But I can say that I have seen smaller changes happen and we are on the verge of making huge breakthroughs on free energy and free markets.   Why?  Because I changed my view on the world from one where I was going to survive mad max as a farmer to one where wealth was abundant about 3 months prior to starting bitshares.   

Had i held to prior beliefs the world would have gone a different direction. 

For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
I attempt to avoid labeling my views as labels carry baggage.

 I submit for your consideration the following unprovable and impossible to disprove hypothesis: there is only one consciousness and that consciousness is me.   All physical reality and other people are thus a manifestation of that one consciousness just like the people and things in your dreams are merely manifestations of your subcounsous.

 Lacking any evidence to suggest that there exists some objective reality outside this one consciousness one may choose how they wish to view the world.   

 If viewing the world as objective and physical and consciousness as being derived from the physical makes your life more enjoyable then view it that way and it will behave that way.   If, on the other hand, viewing the world as I view it makes life more enjoyable then view it that way.   

 There is no need to accept it on faith... it is easy enough to experiment with fully embracing both views.  For most of us, viewing the world as physical and us as something "separate" is our default view... so it is very hard to adapt your perspective to a world where you create it through your own subjective reality much like slowly gaining control of your dream rather than being controlled by your dream. 

 So I choose to adopt the views that make life most enjoyable... and I can honestly say that switching perspectives lets you see the world in a whole new way.  The thought of adopting any kind of objective view of reality at this point in time seems painful and "dead".   

 How does this fit into morality... I choose how I interpret and perceive the actions of others and what I focus on.  I choose to view aggression and problems in the world as an outward reflection of the internal/sub-counsious need to control the world around me.   I choose to focus on releasing my own need to control others in any way shape or form as the ultimate way for finding my own freedom and changing the world.
If you control the reality why aren't you living in a world which is closer to heaven than the one you are right know? Why have you chosen to create pain, poverty, wars, ebola, etc?

The standard argument for solipsism.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/solipsis/

We can't prove whether or not minds other than our own exist.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline vegolino

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 450
  • Reality is Information
    • View Profile
It's ironic that a lot of people who hold the belief that everything is in their head and nothing is real write a lot of books about it. Who do they think is going to read them? :)

Fans of the Matrix?  ;)
Yes I definitely like Matrix, but Tom is NASA physicist and is using famous physics experiments like double slit to explain his views.
If you have time check out his video that I put link for and you may be pleasantly surprised. By the way he is not only physicist today who hold this views that reality is information.  :)

Offline cube

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1404
  • Bit by bit, we will get there!
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: bitcube
It's ironic that a lot of people who hold the belief that everything is in their head and nothing is real write a lot of books about it. Who do they think is going to read them? :)

Fans of the Matrix?  ;)
ID: bitcube
bitcube is a dedicated witness and committe member. Please vote for bitcube.