VOTE DAC Just Got More Interesting

[bytemaster]

It seems completely analogous to BitSharesX. The candidates place bids and the voters place asks. If it's one you like you have a low ask. If it's one you don't you have an insanely high ask. The candidate that can buy the majority votes wins while at the same time likely funding their opponent.

If the candidate is rich or poor adjust your prices accordingly to remove that as a factor.

Like BitSharesX the ledger is transparent, verifiable, and anonymous.

[xh3]

Interesting,    to everyone in this thread.  This voting DAC is very interesting.  The process of conducting a vote can be mapped across the same problem space as crypto, DACs, etc.  It's trust, it's ledgers, it's double-spending, it's transparency, it's auditable records, it's consensus.
 I think the reason the philosophy flows in this discussion on voting, is because we're in a problem space that includes much of what it means to operate as a human being.  How do you come to fair and honest decisions in a world where  every actor has  different realities, opinions, values?  And really, this question exists inside, outside, and between humans.  It exists between groups of humans, it exists in every exchange a human makes.  The solution, IMO, is to find ways to unlock the genius of nature, and harness the wisdom of crowds.

I think a lot can be understood by extrapolating out from our biological imperatives.  Our nature is directing what we find interesting, pleasurable, exciting, worthy, etc.  Our biological machinery rewards us for doing things that help the species.  A major reason why people solve problems.  Think about it.  Someone who writes a DAC, a farmer, an artist, a policeman, a politician, or even a guy who joins a hate group, someone who drills for oil, works at the NSA, etc., are all interpreting how to help the species and getting paid in pleasure by their biological machinery.

The problems being solved here are the same problems that all biological systems have to solve. 

[Riverhead]

It seems completely analogous to BitSharesX. The candidates place bids and the voters place asks. If it's one you like you have a low ask. If it's one you don't you have an insanely high ask. The candidate that can buy the majority votes wins while at the same time likely funding their opponent.

If the candidate is rich or poor adjust your prices accordingly to remove that as a factor.

Like BitSharesX the ledger is transparent, verifiable, and anonymous.

[CLains]

Privacy means that your identity is public but your actions are not.
Anonymity is when your actions are public, but your identity is not.

Interesting!

[werneo]

In my opinion... votes shouldn't be anonymous for a very simple reason:

1) let tyranny be transparent.
2) hold voters socially accountable for who they vote for. 

Transparency is the best for everyone... give someone a mask and they will commit many crimes.   Remove a mask and they must take responsibility for their actions.

Just for the records I disagree.
Votes must remain anonymous BUT with a transparent mechanism (like blockchain technology) to be sure everybody’s vote is counted right.

Voting is private, and the ballot is anonymous.

Privacy means that your identity is public but your actions are not. (They know who you are, but not what you are doing.)

Voting is a private activity.

Anonymity is when your actions are public, but your identity is not. (They know what you are doing, but not who you are.)

The ballot (the quantifiable result of your vote) is anonymous. When you cast your ballot it becomes a separate entity that cannot find its way back to you . (Though presumably a voter should be able to prove ownership of their vote after the fact.)

If we look at it this way, the voter is actually selling their completed ballot. The completed ballot is the product. The voter is the creator of the product.

So the next question is: does the voter sell ballots a la carte, or does he or she sell their ballots in bundles? Can voters make a contract with vote-buyers to robo-sign their future ballots? Then voters would be blind about what their vote was used for and how it may actually impact their life over the long term. It's possible a voter could sell their ballot to someone who will then use it knowingly against the interest of the voter. Is simple Due Diligence enough to protect voters from potentially predatory vote buyers?

[liondani]

In my opinion... votes shouldn't be anonymous for a very simple reason:

1) let tyranny be transparent.
2) hold voters socially accountable for who they vote for. 

Transparency is the best for everyone... give someone a mask and they will commit many crimes.   Remove a mask and they must take responsibility for their actions.

Just for the records I disagree.
Votes must remain anonymous BUT with a transparent mechanism (like blockchain technology) to be sure everybody’s vote is counted right.

[fluxer555]

If you just sat around in a bliss-puddle in heaven eventually you would get bored and start fantasising and loose yourself in the dream of life.

I had a 'spiritual experience' (definition omitted) a few years ago that led me to believe this is in fact the case. It was analogous to the feeling of waking up from a dream, but wanting to go back to sleep because the dream was too interesting. Thank you for the video, I'll check it out.

[matt608]

I just wanted to thank everyone here for the enlightening conversations on consciousness, especially bytemaster, matt608, and CLains, and BldSwtTrs.

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?

I think we should all be asking ourselves this question.

Life may be the ultimate fantasy.  Real relationships, real struggle, real adversity, real victory, real emotions, real highs and lows.  From mortal terror to divine love, life has it all.  If you just sat around in a bliss-puddle in heaven eventually you would get bored and start fantasising and loose yourself in the dream of life.  We could be in these limited forms for fun and self-edification.

Ultimately though I think existence is pointless, in a beautiful and liberating way, which means we are free to do anything. There's no pressure to do anything at all, not even to keep living.  It's voluntary.  No one paid anything to be born.  Life is free.  The Universe or super-consiousness is infinitely rich.  The source of all wealth, is us, we are wealth itself, and life itself and many other things.  The imaginary authorities of our psyche's keep us living between the lines, when really, anything goes.  Hence the saying "if you meet buddha, kill him", because if you meet buddha, it means you think you are not buddha.

I could start wearing socks on my hands on Tuesdays and start a morning ritual of pouring buckets of sand over my head for no reason at all, Whatcha gonna do? lol. Doing completely pointless stuff is freedom and we're already doing it all the time.

This is a totally brilliant talk on the matter:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBV9wr2k8ys&list=UUeYOS3W6aVelr9x2zHqITyg

[werneo]

:oMaybe I am a little hung up on the nomenclature of "Voting" because I associate voting with my status as a citizen in a civil representative democracy.

And of course I know that my right to vote is INALIENABLE, which means that I cannot sell my vote or give it away.

Then of course there could not be a FUTURES market for an inalienable vote, because even if you did sign a contract to vote some for unknown ballot in the future, you could potentially breakk the contract and reclaim your vote if you decided that you really wanted it back.

Maybe I am barking up the wrong tree. BM you are quite a brilliant fellow. You are making me stretch my brain uncomfortably.

BTW--All perception is subjective. That's a given. Observation Bias informs all perception, but that does't cast human beings on a solipsistic island. In fact we humans enjoy a continuous exchange of (subjectively derived) ideas and meaning pretty much everyday throughout the course of our lives. Those ideas are spread through measurable, quantifiable behaviors. So it's possible to observe an idea expressed as a behavior, and from the behavior infer the idea. Game theory models track that sort of thing.

VOTING is not a right, you were not born with it... it is not INALIENABLE... in fact, it isn't even legitimate for you to vote to kill someone else (ie: war) because that would violate someone elses INALIENABLE right to not be murdered.

Saying that someone cannot cast their vote based entirely on monetary concerns also a violation of their INALIENABLE right to free will that doesn't harm anyone else... suppose they only vote for someone promising them welfare payouts and a free lunch?   How is that different?

BM, by that logic I would have the civil right to sell my organs on an open market, or put myself on the slavery block. Do you believe I have such a right?

Suppose my child required a life-saving operation that cost $500k, and the only means I had to raise the cash was to sell myself into permanent slavery. In that case I would be under duress, but I would still be exercising my free will so what the hay.

I'm still unclear about how the Voting DAC applies to a civil democracy. How will the Voting DAC work? What kind of balloting are we talking about? Is this about electoral polling? Or are we talking about a game of some kind? I am intrigued and confused. I want to understand the applications.

BTW, here's a definition of Inalienable:

Not subject to sale or transfer; inseparable. That which is inalienable cannot be bought, sold, or transferred from one individual to another.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Inalienable+rights

[fluxer555]

I just wanted to thank everyone here for the enlightening conversations on consciousness, especially bytemaster, matt608, CLains, and BldSwtTrs.

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?

I think we should all be asking ourselves this question.

[bytemaster]

:oMaybe I am a little hung up on the nomenclature of "Voting" because I associate voting with my status as a citizen in a civil representative democracy.

And of course I know that my right to vote is INALIENABLE, which means that I cannot sell my vote or give it away.

Then of course there could not be a FUTURES market for an inalienable vote, because even if you did sign a contract to vote some for unknown ballot in the future, you could potentially breakk the contract and reclaim your vote if you decided that you really wanted it back.

Maybe I am barking up the wrong tree. BM you are quite a brilliant fellow. You are making me stretch my brain uncomfortably.

BTW--All perception is subjective. That's a given. Observation Bias informs all perception, but that does't cast human beings on a solipsistic island. In fact we humans enjoy a continuous exchange of (subjectively derived) ideas and meaning pretty much everyday throughout the course of our lives. Those ideas are spread through measurable, quantifiable behaviors. So it's possible to observe an idea expressed as a behavior, and from the behavior infer the idea. Game theory models track that sort of thing.

VOTING is not a right, you were not born with it... it is not INALIENABLE... in fact, it isn't even legitimate for you to vote to kill someone else (ie: war) because that would violate someone elses INALIENABLE right to not be murdered.

Saying that someone cannot cast their vote based entirely on monetary concerns also a violation of their INALIENABLE right to free will that doesn't harm anyone else... suppose they only vote for someone promising them welfare payouts and a free lunch?   How is that different?   

[werneo]

 :oMaybe I am a little hung up on the nomenclature of "Voting" because I associate voting with my status as a citizen in a civil representative democracy.

And of course I know that my right to vote is INALIENABLE, which means that I cannot sell my vote or give it away.

Then of course there could not be a FUTURES market for an inalienable vote, because even if you did sign a contract to vote some for unknown ballot in the future, you could potentially breakk the contract and reclaim your vote if you decided that you really wanted it back.

Maybe I am barking up the wrong tree. BM you are quite a brilliant fellow. You are making me stretch my brain uncomfortably.

BTW--All perception is subjective. That's a given. Observation Bias informs all perception, but that does't cast human beings on a solipsistic island. In fact we humans enjoy a continuous exchange of (subjectively derived) ideas and meaning pretty much everyday throughout the course of our lives. Those ideas are spread through measurable, quantifiable behaviors. So it's possible to observe an idea expressed as a behavior, and from the behavior infer the idea. Game theory models track that sort of thing.

[starspirit]

Maybe nobody left i this thread cares to discuss VOTE DAC anymore, but...

I noticed earlier a lot of debate around optimal voting systems. Wouldn't a VOTE DAC be more universally attractive and flexible if it allows for whatever voting systems people want to make use of (traditional) and can conceive of (new)? There does not seem to be a need to dictate.

However, in parallel with external elections, it could be a great marketing and educational exercise to hold parallel elections, just for experimental purposes (profit unlikely) that use novel forms.

Also, could the VOTE DAC host prediction markets around elections? If a cut is taken, that could be another income stream for shareholders and funding development.

[Myshadow]

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.

The children are not separate from you.  Only from your point of view have you labeled the things that happened to them terrible and presume they felt the same way.   If the children were fully enlightened they would not experience the terrible situation the same way you would.  Thus you are projecting your feelings on the situation on the children.

We control how we interpret things... and that makes all the difference.

We have influence on our beliefs, which have influence on our perceptions, which have influence on our beliefs, which have influence on our actions, which have influence on our beliefs........

If us and our children were not biological entities with relatively predictable behaviours when exposed to certain stimuli, then this would be a valid discussion. However there seems to be a disconnect between belief and biological evidence here... I don't mean this as criticism, but as an observation.

Although everyone here no doubt treasures the fruits of and would certainly not argue against the validity of the scientific method, it doesn't seem that anyone applies the same rigor of logical consistency and requirements of evidence to ethics. As a result, the majority here thinks that ethics are subjective and not objective, after reading the below book i'm now firmly in the objective camp... A highly recommended read if ethics and philosophy interests you

http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/books/UPB/Universally_Preferable_Behaviour_UPB_by_Stefan_Molyneux_PDF.pdf

[donkeypong]

Even matter is just energy, right? Thoughts are energy, too.