Author Topic: Voter Apathy - We need to provide incentive for people to vote  (Read 15062 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

sumantso

  • Guest
I believe people will vote if the process is easy. Regarding incentives, maybe the transaction fee will be waived if they vote.

I think the delegates and employees should be separated. Delegate voting would be semi-automatic, with the client suggesting based on reliability, location (try to make it spread out), non-hosting on the same service providers (if possible). As far as possible the delegate voting - the backbone which runs the blockchain - should be kept as maintenance free as possible.

Employees should get one page in the client which lists them in groups in an easy-to-understand GUI. It will also list teams and let the voters allocate pays to them as whole or to individual members. It will be a bit like a game - I see on the top how much I have got to spend, and I can allot a portion of it amongst the various employees listed.

Bottom line, if its simple there will be more voters.

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12922
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
Am I going mad, or did the word "think" escape your lips? A five page thread and no one has solved the riddle?

The solution is really very simple:

If they do not vote, they cannot collect any yield! Those who vote are rewarded with interest!
Doesn't work that way.

You get yield on bitAssets .. i.e. bitUSD but not BTS
though you can only vote with BTS.

the blockchain does not know which account holds which bitUSD or BTS

Offline FreeTrade

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 700
    • View Profile
Yes, but this is an issue that we can see coming from a mile away. And I'm not convinced that people will magically become more interested in voting when there's more money at stake; they may still assume the delegates are doing a good job and let someone else focus on that junk while they spend their time trading and transacting.

+1

You're right - they won't become more interested in voting.

There are only two ways we're going to see quality voting -

1. Large shareholders
2. Trusted members with a lot of proxies (slates)

Some people have suggested incentivizing voting with rewards - but once you start getting people to view their votes in monetary terms, it is a small step away from trading votes for kickbacks.
 
“People should be more sophisticated? How are you gonna get that done?” - Jerry Seinfeld reply to Bill Maher

Offline svk

Instead of voting for individual delegates, users should be presented with issues or categories. I think I mentioned this in a previous post.  Categories should be presented that they can rank the importance of, or give give their own percentage. Like the way you select how much to invest in a particular type of fund in your 401K (high risk, mid-cap, emerging-market, etc). The user are presented with a list like investing in a Bitshares funds. They can allocate there votes by percentage.

Please rank the following criteria by percentage.

1) Performance     30%
2) Marketing         30%
3) Charity             10%
4) R&D                  20%
5) Support            10%

The votes are then proportioned to the delegates or slates that meet those definition and have a good track record. The track record can be weighted by the those who receive direct votes from users. People are more likely to vote on issues than individuals because it's easier to grasp.

Thank you!  If someone wants to take a more granular approach, they should have an advanced option to see an individual slate. By default, I like the individual categories similar to a 401k. Pheonike's solution would be great for bigger adoption that we're targeting. I'd even take it one step further an have a checkbox to distribute the votes equally to the categories to the people that don't care one way or another.


I love the passion in the thread, however, I'm trying to picture my close friends that might be interested in the tech giving a crap about the slates. For some of us, this is our world. For most everyone else, it's just one more thing in their life. How passionate are you about your debit card?

Great solution Pheonike.
It's a good idea in theory but how do we objectively measure those criteria? Definitely needs a third party, can't be done in the client, and even then it's really hard.

We'll need a site where one can rank delegates according to those criteria I guess, but once again we run into the issue of rating standby delegates. Do we give them a default reliability of 100% until they're given a chance to actually prove themselves?
Worker: dev.bitsharesblocks

Offline donkeypong

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2329
    • View Profile

Once marketing and adoption starts to take off and there is real money in running a delegate we'll see more active voting.

Currently half the stakes are unclaimed and BM has hire/fire voting stake against all the delegates. Until that changes through natural market maturation votes don't count for a while lot.

Yes, but this is an issue that we can see coming from a mile away. And I'm not convinced that people will magically become more interested in voting when there's more money at stake; they may still assume the delegates are doing a good job and let someone else focus on that junk while they spend their time trading and transacting.

Rather than let the voting mess become a possible point of failure, it makes sense to have this discussion now and find the best way to address it proactively.

Offline Riverhead

Voting with all your stake: Each share has 101+ votes. If you are voting less than that you get the message.

A lot of complex schemes in this thread. Remember all logic needs to happen at block signing. Like a turn based strategy game. More complex means higher transaction fees.

Once marketing and adoption starts to take off and there is real money in running a delegate we'll see more active voting.

Currently half the stakes are unclaimed and BM has hire/fire voting stake against all the delegates. Until that changes through natural market maturation votes don't count for a while lot.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk


Tuck Fheman

  • Guest
My proposition is thus.... would it be feasible to have a splash page where all possible advantageous delegate features could be listed in the form of 'checkbox' type selection criteria. By this manner a sharehodler community member may simply select the features that best represent his or her wishes. Of course, the selections can be moified by individual at any time they choose to do so. They would select and forget. Perhaps reviewing their selections to reflect new features presented.
On the other side of the ledger, the delegate would select the features that he or she would adopt as part of their basket of goodies. When married together we would have 101 delegates that represent the most requested features

 +5%

Tuck Fheman

  • Guest
I think the biggest problem is -- voting is confusing. I'm fairly technically inclined, but I still have difficulty understanding just what the hell the client's talking about when it says "you are not voting with all of your stake"...

Needs to be better streamlined.

 +5%

I see the message often, despite voting, so how often am I required/requested to vote?  I thought it was once a year, for some reason, or I faced a fee (tax?) of some kind.

Also, does the client vote when sending funds? There's an option next to transfer which indicates I'm voting as recommended and I assumed when I send funds that was happening.

Offline hpenvy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 451
    • View Profile
Instead of voting for individual delegates, users should be presented with issues or categories. I think I mentioned this in a previous post.  Categories should be presented that they can rank the importance of, or give give their own percentage. Like the way you select how much to invest in a particular type of fund in your 401K (high risk, mid-cap, emerging-market, etc). The user are presented with a list like investing in a Bitshares funds. They can allocate there votes by percentage.

Please rank the following criteria by percentage.

1) Performance     30%
2) Marketing         30%
3) Charity             10%
4) R&D                  20%
5) Support            10%

The votes are then proportioned to the delegates or slates that meet those definition and have a good track record. The track record can be weighted by the those who receive direct votes from users. People are more likely to vote on issues than individuals because it's easier to grasp.

Thank you!  If someone wants to take a more granular approach, they should have an advanced option to see an individual slate. By default, I like the individual categories similar to a 401k. Pheonike's solution would be great for bigger adoption that we're targeting. I'd even take it one step further an have a checkbox to distribute the votes equally to the categories to the people that don't care one way or another.


I love the passion in the thread, however, I'm trying to picture my close friends that might be interested in the tech giving a crap about the slates. For some of us, this is our world. For most everyone else, it's just one more thing in their life. How passionate are you about your debit card?

Great solution Pheonike. 
« Last Edit: November 18, 2014, 03:17:26 am by hpenvy »
=============
btsx address: hpenvy
Tips appreciated for good work

Offline Vizzini

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 102
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: vizzini
Am I going mad, or did the word "think" escape your lips? A five page thread and no one has solved the riddle?

The solution is really very simple:

If they do not vote, they cannot collect any yield! Those who vote are rewarded with interest!

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha... ...


Never go against a Sicilian when death is on the line.

Offline Thom

Well... the main reason that led me to bring this up... I have been debating a lot of Bitcoin/Altcoin people as to the merits of DPoS versus PoW. I am telling a half truth when I tell them that someone needs to obtain 51% of the money supply to attack the network... due to voter apathy that is not the case. It is not only a security issue, it is a public perception issue of a possible security issue. If someone really advertised that instead you only need 14% of the money supply due to voter apathy, I think people will think more negatively of DPoS. How can we expect people to trust DPoS if it isn't as secure as it can theoretically be? IT doesn't look good in a debate when someone brings up that only 14% of the money supply is needed... they give me a hard enough time about 51% being bad enough.

+5% an extremely important point. This has been gnawing at me for some time now. I keep seeing these topics on delegates and voting recurring and yet no significant changes are proposed by the devs to address this. The last major change was with the creation of delegate slates months ago.

coinhoarder & oldman (among others) have made some excellent points. We really need to solve the problem of apathy, and imo we need to look at incentives (and disincentives). Oldman's point about responsibility is spot on imo. Several of the suggestions made here would be better than what we now have. We need to get bm, toast or other devs involved in this and work out a plan to address this problem ASAP.

It's the same thing with our govt. It works good enough for me so I don't waste my time with it. If they ever really start effing up I'll take some time to exercise my right to vote to change things. This is going to end up a lot like that and it's o.k. It is a better system because it is sooooo easy for people to vote when they want.

If you're actually a teenager I can understand why you think this way. You're a product of govt. influence on society which promotes apathy & irresponsibility. You're conditioned to think "govt. will take care of me" or "let the govt. pay for it". Govt. is force. Is that what you want? Your believe that voting can actually change things at the state & national level ignores the decades of evidence to the contrary that preceded your birth. Your thinking is seriously flawed and I couldn't disagree with you more deeply than I do.

Do BTS shareholders have a right to yield if they cannot be bothered to vote?

I wasn't aware BTS earns yield, I thought that was just on bitassets?  Bitasset holders definitely don't need to vote.

I'm not in favour of punishing with fines people for not voting.  BTS holders just need to be able to be able to easily vote someone out if they are attacking the network and have the rest automated as much as possible.  I don't know why delegates can't just be ranked algorithmically with using the fields on bitsharesblocks.com/delegates such as

 - feed frequency
 - number of active feeds
 - reliability
 - frequency of updates
 - time running as delegate (they'd become more trusted over time, would be a v important factor to make attacks more expensive)

There could be an algorithmically produced top 101 slate which could be auto-voted on (i.e. not voted on) and give its effect a weighting of say 50/50 vs the active votes of the BTS holders.  So if there is 15% active stake, the algorithmically defined stake gets 15% voting power automatically taken from the inactive stake, doubling the active stake (while decreasing the voters power by half).  Let an algorithm take some of the load. 

Or at the very least an algorithm could serve as a back up, so that if the active stake falls below a certain level, the algorithm could step in and do the voting on the BTS holders' behalf.  The only way to trick the algorithm would be to run a fleet of very reliable delegates for a long period.... which might end up being cheaper than just buying up the BTS... not sure.

Luckybit & I have been talking about bots & automation to help with this problem, so I agree with you on that. The metrics for delegates outside the 101 need to be determined. As svk pointed out the data and metrics for standby delegates cannot be exactly the same. Where I disagree with you is regarding the need for incentives, which encompasses disincentives. If I understood fuzzy's perspective, (a form of direct pay for people to vote) I have to disagree. Too much possibility for abuse and bribery. I very much like the 10x transaction fee penalty or options similar to that as a negative incentive.

How to incentivize becoming informed is definitely a tough nut to crack, but the closest to it would probably be related to Pheonike's idea of issue based voting. If we can couple what people are interested in or passionate about to a delegate or voting slate, and make it easy to them to see that connection and to vote, that may be the best we can do.

There are some really viable options being voiced here that will improve DPoS and I'm hoping to see some action taken by the devs before the green light is given to the marketing push.
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere - MLK |  Verbaltech2 Witness Reports: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,23902.0.html

Offline svk



Do BTS shareholders have a right to yield if they cannot be bothered to vote?


I wasn't aware BTS earns yield, I thought that was just on bitassets?  Bitasset holders definitely don't need to vote.

I'm not in favour of punishing with fines people for not voting.  BTS holders just need to be able to be able to easily vote someone out if they are attacking the network and have the rest automated as much as possible.  I don't know why delegates can't just be ranked algorithmically with using the fields on bitsharesblocks.com/delegates such as

 - feed frequency
 - number of active feeds
 - reliability
 - frequency of updates
 - time running as delegate (they'd become more trusted over time, would be a v important factor to make attacks more expensive)

There could be an algorithmically produced top 101 slate which could be auto-voted on (i.e. not voted on) and give its effect a weighting of say 50/50 vs the active votes of the BTS holders.  So if there is 15% active stake, the algorithmically defined stake gets 15% voting power automatically taken from the inactive stake, doubling the active stake (while decreasing the voters power by half).  Let an algorithm take some of the load. 

Or at the very least an algorithm could serve as a back up, so that if the active stake falls below a certain level, the algorithm could step in and do the voting on the BTS holders' behalf.  The only way to trick the algorithm would be to run a fleet of very reliable delegates for a long period.... which might end up being cheaper than just buying up the BTS... not sure.

The big problem with this is that you can only really rank delegates that are currently in the top 101 using this strategy. Standby delegates cannot publish feeds and won't have a reliability score until they're actually in the top 101.

What I feel we need is some kind of suspension period, where if you miss a certain number of blocks for example you automatically become ineligible for a day or two. Creating a fork could make you ineligible for longer, a week maybe. This would allow standby delegates a shot at proving that they can be reliable and that they can publish feeds. The current system is too static and requires too much voter intervention to punish poor behaviour imo.
Worker: dev.bitsharesblocks

Offline Pheonike

Instead of voting for individual delegates, users should be presented with issues or categories. I think I mentioned this in a previous post.  Categories should be presented that they can rank the importance of, or give give their own percentage. Like the way you select how much to invest in a particular type of fund in your 401K (high risk, mid-cap, emerging-market, etc). The user are presented with a list like investing in a Bitshares funds. They can allocate there votes by percentage.

Please rank the following criteria by percentage.

1) Performance     30%
2) Marketing         30%
3) Charity             10%
4) R&D                  20%
5) Support            10%

The votes are then proportioned to the delegates or slates that meet those definition and have a good track record. The track record can be weighted by the those who receive direct votes from users. People are more likely to vote on issues than individuals because it's easier to grasp.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2014, 03:53:53 am by Pheonike »

Offline feedthemcake

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
    • View Profile
Hmmm... what about your yield is split into 101 shares and locked/released until you vote?

Offline fuzzy

How does forcing an uninformed voter to make an uninformed vote produce any value for anyone?

I am currently an advocate of a system where people can get paid a small amount to vote, and can delegate their vote to those who are more well versed in certain areas.  For instance, I might delegate Xeroc, Gamey, Bytemaster and Riverhead to vote on very highly technical issues.  I might further delegate them into areas where they have a very high level of expertise compared to one another. 

In return, they receive extra points for voting based on the number of people who delegate their votes to them.  Certain people will be designated experts in certain areas of expertise and will be paid to voting for those who delegate them.  The only difference between this system compared to what we have today is:
1) Delegates can be voted out at any time
2) Voting records are completely transparent and auditable
3) Citizens have the potential to become highly paid for being subject matter experts and gaining a great deal of support based on philosophical and quantifiable grounds.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2014, 07:24:51 pm by fuzzy »
WhaleShares==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits and WhaleShares = Love :D

Offline matt608

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 878
    • View Profile


Do BTS shareholders have a right to yield if they cannot be bothered to vote?


I wasn't aware BTS earns yield, I thought that was just on bitassets?  Bitasset holders definitely don't need to vote.

I'm not in favour of punishing with fines people for not voting.  BTS holders just need to be able to be able to easily vote someone out if they are attacking the network and have the rest automated as much as possible.  I don't know why delegates can't just be ranked algorithmically with using the fields on bitsharesblocks.com/delegates such as

 - feed frequency
 - number of active feeds
 - reliability
 - frequency of updates
 - time running as delegate (they'd become more trusted over time, would be a v important factor to make attacks more expensive)

There could be an algorithmically produced top 101 slate which could be auto-voted on (i.e. not voted on) and give its effect a weighting of say 50/50 vs the active votes of the BTS holders.  So if there is 15% active stake, the algorithmically defined stake gets 15% voting power automatically taken from the inactive stake, doubling the active stake (while decreasing the voters power by half).  Let an algorithm take some of the load. 

Or at the very least an algorithm could serve as a back up, so that if the active stake falls below a certain level, the algorithm could step in and do the voting on the BTS holders' behalf.  The only way to trick the algorithm would be to run a fleet of very reliable delegates for a long period.... which might end up being cheaper than just buying up the BTS... not sure.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2014, 07:17:11 pm by matt608 »

Offline Shentist

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1601
    • View Profile
    • metaexchange
  • BitShares: shentist

earlier you suggested for none voters to pay 10 times the fees for transaction. i would support this. we need insentives and punishment measures.

could we not pay this higher fees to the voters as a kind of dividend?

i am for forcing to vote, i think i will take the risk for not informed votes to the risk of a cheap 51% attack with just buying 8-9 % of our marketcap.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2014, 07:41:49 pm by Shentist »

Offline fuzzy

We need to figure out a way to provide incentive for shareholders to vote. The biggest issue I see is with 13.06% of the money supply, someone could perform a 51% attack. This is obviously much less ideal than 51% of the money supply. There are a lot of other issues pertaining to voter apathy as well. No offense to those that have tried organizing these things, but I'm not talking about some silly "election week", campaigning, or mumble hangouts. People need incentive to vote or else they never will. We need to figure out a way that shareholders can be paid to vote. IE. a percentage of fees.. a percentage of dilution.. a little extra dilution.. a delegate... somehow, some way... people need incentive to vote. The current system is not working, the delegate with the most votes has 13.06%. How is this OK with everyone??!?

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=11416.0

Please consider my points here and offer your own.  I personally think this model is fine... and Dan has even spoken to this himself as a potential means of getting delegates voted in.  You are right, though.  We do need this. 
WhaleShares==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits and WhaleShares = Love :D

Offline donkeypong

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2329
    • View Profile
My proposition is thus.... would it be feasible to have a splash page where all possible advantageous delegate features could be listed in the form of 'checkbox' type selection criteria. By this manner a sharehodler community member may simply select the features that best represent his or her wishes. Of course, the selections can be moified by individual at any time they choose to do so. They would select and forget. Perhaps reviewing their selections to reflect new features presented.
On the other side of the ledger, the delegate would select the features that he or she would adopt as part of their basket of goodies. When married together we would have 101 delegates that represent the most requested features
I could go on but I know how smart you guys are and if this is a road worth investigating then my contribution here is complete  8)

I like this idea too. I don't really care how it is implemented, but voter apathy needs to be figured out. Saying it will probably work itself out over time does not work for me. Will we still be saying "it will work itself out over time" years from now? Let's work it out now... any security vulnerabilities should be taken seriously and taken care of if it is under our control to plug them. Voter apathy I feel like is a security vulnerability that we can plug. For all we know, one centralized exchange could have 14% of the money supply.. we could literally be one hack away from a possible attack. I realize we would fork and burn their stake, but it would be a serious black eye for Bitshares and DPoS if someone was able to attack it even in the slightest bit.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but with 14% of the money supply you could gain complete control of the network by not accepting transactions that vote the attacking delegates out. In that case we would need to fork, roll back the block chain, and burn the attacking stake.

House's suggestion works for me. Apathy is a reality we face, so it must be addressed.

If there are any defaults, I just want to screen out delegates who consistently miss blocks and/or fail to update.

Offline CoinHoarder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 660
  • In Cryptocoins I Trust
    • View Profile
My proposition is thus.... would it be feasible to have a splash page where all possible advantageous delegate features could be listed in the form of 'checkbox' type selection criteria. By this manner a sharehodler community member may simply select the features that best represent his or her wishes. Of course, the selections can be moified by individual at any time they choose to do so. They would select and forget. Perhaps reviewing their selections to reflect new features presented.
On the other side of the ledger, the delegate would select the features that he or she would adopt as part of their basket of goodies. When married together we would have 101 delegates that represent the most requested features
I could go on but I know how smart you guys are and if this is a road worth investigating then my contribution here is complete  8)

I like this idea too. I don't really care how it is implemented, but voter apathy needs to be figured out. Saying it will probably work itself out over time does not work for me. Will we still be saying "it will work itself out over time" years from now? Let's work it out now... any security vulnerabilities should be taken seriously and taken care of if it is under our control to plug them. Voter apathy I feel like is a security vulnerability that we can plug. For all we know, one centralized exchange could have 14% of the money supply.. we could literally be one hack away from a possible attack. I realize we would fork and burn their stake, but it would be a serious black eye for Bitshares and DPoS if someone was able to attack it even in the slightest bit.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but with 14% of the money supply you could gain complete control of the network by not accepting transactions that vote the attacking delegates out. In that case we would need to fork, roll back the block chain, and burn the attacking stake.
« Last Edit: November 15, 2014, 03:16:18 am by CoinHoarder »
https://www.decentralized.tech/ -> Market Data, Portfolios, Information, Links, Reviews, Forums, Blogs, Etc.
https://www.cryptohun.ch/ -> Tradable Blockchain Asset PvP Card Game

Offline House

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 82
  • CEO BTCOR Group
    • View Profile
    • BTCOR
  • BitShares: house-ceo
I don't know how many times i've opened my wallet and seen the message  about voting. I have a quick look at the delegate list of names and my eyes just glaze over unless I see a name I recognize. For all intents and purposes, let me just say it's a lot of times.
I ask myself "who are these people and what are they representing for my benefit"

Even if I select a name and go to a great looking page with a few details about pay rate etc. I still know nothing of the delegates intentions, abilities, prospects, relationship to other delegates .....
Surely a one line elevator pitch could be well placed here

Now even if we managed to clarify the information about our great delegates and their honorable intentions and populate their splash page with the content... who in their right mind is gonna take the time to sift through them all and use their maximum voting capacity of 101 selections.
Has anyone actually hand selected and consciously voted for their preferred 101 delegate team?

My proposition is thus.... would it be feasible to have a splash page where all possible advantageous delegate features could be listed in the form of 'checkbox' type selection criteria. By this manner a sharehodler community member may simply select the features that best represent his or her wishes. Of course, the selections can be moified by individual at any time they choose to do so. They would select and forget. Perhaps reviewing their selections to reflect new features presented.
On the other side of the ledger, the delegate would select the features that he or she would adopt as part of their basket of goodies. When married together we would have 101 delegates that represent the most requested features
I could go on but I know how smart you guys are and if this is a road worth investigating then my contribution here is complete  8)
« Last Edit: November 14, 2014, 10:48:32 pm by House »

Offline hpenvy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 451
    • View Profile
Ok... new train of thought as to making it easier to vote. Assume someone is not voting for a full slate or any delegates. Feel free to suggest changes to this.. these are just suggestions. Let's call it the "voting wizard".

Whenever the client launches it checks to see if they are voting a full slate of delegates.

If not, a screen pops up saying "You are not voting for a full slate of delegates, would you like to vote now?"

Click no... Nothing happens (Or see optional below)

Click yes... it brings you to the voting panel which automates the voting process like the installation of software. With the following steps:

1. "Would you like to pick delegates manually or choose from a slate of delegates?"

1a. If manually it goes to a screen similar to the current delegate panel with only one difference. Delegates are allowed to publish a short description of what their campaign is for.. Similar to publishing their version or price feeds. This way you never have need to leave the client to evaluate delegates.

1b. If they choose to vote for a slate, then it goes to a slate listing screen. It should show who published the slate and allow for a field to be published that shows what their criteria is for picking delegates. Allow stakeholders to vote for which slates are most popular and order them from most popular to least popular. That way those that actually vote can choose which slate should be the default.

Optional: I like the idea someone mentioned... of providing incentive to make people vote. When someone goes to send a transaction and they aren't voting for a full slate.. charge them 10x the normal transaction fee. Ask them if they'd like to vote to bypass the bigger fee by voting, if yes send them to the "voting wizard". Have a way for delegates to tell if someone is voting or not, if they are not and if they don't pay the larger fee, then do not include their transactions into blocks.

OK, now we're talking. I think you're on the right track with 1,1a,1b!  As for the optional, I'm not sure.
=============
btsx address: hpenvy
Tips appreciated for good work

Offline starspirit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 948
  • Financial markets pro over 20 years
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: starspirit
Ok... new train of thought as to making it easier to vote. Assume someone is not voting for a full slate or any delegates. Feel free to suggest changes to this.. these are just suggestions. Let's call it the "voting wizard".

Whenever the client launches it checks to see if they are voting a full slate of delegates.

If not, a screen pops up saying "You are not voting for a full slate of delegates, would you like to vote now?"

Click no... Nothing happens

Click yes... it brings you to the voting panel which automates the voting process like the installation of software. With the following steps:

1. "Would you like to pick delegates manually or choose from a slate of delegates?"

1a. If manually it goes to a screen similar to the current delegate panel with only one difference. Delegates are allowed to publish a short description of what their campaign is for.. Similar to publishing their version or price feeds. This way you never need to leave the client.

1b. If they choose to vote for a slate, then it goes to a slate listing screen. It should show who published the slate and allow for a field to be published that shows what their criteria is for picking delegates. Allow stakeholders to vote for which slates are most popular and order them from most pupil are to least popular. That way those that actually vote can choose which slate should be the default.

Optional: I like the idea someone mentioned... of providing incentive to make people vote. When someone goes to send a transaction and they aren't voting for a full slate.. charge them 10x the normal transaction fee. Ask them if they'd like to vote to bypass the bigger fee by voting, if yes send them to the "voting wizard". Have a way for delegates to tell if someone is voting or not, if they are not and if they don't pay the larger fee, then do not include their transactions into blocks.
Better line of thinking, look for ways to make participation easier and dependent on how much time or information a voter has to contribute.
Still don't like the incentive though. There is no way to prove a person is informed  - they can pick a random slate to avoid the fee.

Offline CoinHoarder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 660
  • In Cryptocoins I Trust
    • View Profile
Ok... new train of thought as to making it easier to vote. Assume someone is not voting for a full slate or any delegates. Feel free to suggest changes to this.. these are just suggestions. Let's call it the "voting wizard".

Whenever the client launches it checks to see if they are voting a full slate of delegates.

If not, a screen pops up saying "You are not voting for a full slate of delegates, would you like to vote now?"

Click no... Nothing happens (Or see optional below)

Click yes... it brings you to the voting panel which automates the voting process like the installation of software. With the following steps:

1. "Would you like to pick delegates manually or choose from a slate of delegates?"

1a. If manually it goes to a screen similar to the current delegate panel with only one difference. Delegates are allowed to publish a short description of what their campaign is for.. Similar to publishing their version or price feeds. This way you never have need to leave the client to evaluate delegates.

1b. If they choose to vote for a slate, then it goes to a slate listing screen. It should show who published the slate and allow for a field to be published that shows what their criteria is for picking delegates. Allow stakeholders to vote for which slates are most popular and order them from most popular to least popular. That way those that actually vote can choose which slate should be the default.

Optional: I like the idea someone mentioned... of enforcing a penalty to make people vote. When someone goes to send a transaction and they aren't voting for a full slate.. charge them 10x the normal transaction fee. Ask them if they'd like to vote to bypass the bigger fee by voting, if yes send them to the "voting wizard". Have a way for delegates to tell if someone is voting or not, if they are not and if they don't pay the larger fee, then do not include their transactions into blocks.
« Last Edit: November 14, 2014, 10:10:36 pm by CoinHoarder »
https://www.decentralized.tech/ -> Market Data, Portfolios, Information, Links, Reviews, Forums, Blogs, Etc.
https://www.cryptohun.ch/ -> Tradable Blockchain Asset PvP Card Game

Offline hpenvy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 451
    • View Profile
How does forcing an uninformed voter to make an uninformed vote produce any value for anyone?

Imagine if US citizens were taxed at a higher rate if they elected not to vote; the general population would be orders of magnitude more informed on the political process.


For all that's crypto-holy, no no no no. The general population might watch a few more attack ads, they might find new ways to vote for candidates that limit my freedom because they're unable to comprehend the complexities of different platforms. While I have 0 faith in US national elections, I see the principle of informed voters at local city hall meetings. If you don't understand the issues, please save your vote.
« Last Edit: November 14, 2014, 09:16:30 pm by hpenvy »
=============
btsx address: hpenvy
Tips appreciated for good work

Offline starspirit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 948
  • Financial markets pro over 20 years
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: starspirit
How does forcing an uninformed voter to make an uninformed vote produce any value for anyone?

The idea would be to force the uniformed to become informed, or at minimum more informed than they would otherwise be.

Imagine if US citizens were taxed at a higher rate if they elected not to vote; the general population would be orders of magnitude more informed on the political process.

Really, do folks have a right to the benefits of a democratic society if they cannot be bothered to vote?

Do BTS shareholders have a right to yield if they cannot be bothered to vote?

"Hey, use the system to transfer and store value. But if you want the benefits (yield) you need to participate (vote)."
You can't force people to become more informed. They can just vote uninformed to avoid the penalty, or collect any incentive provided. Still no value.

Offline oldman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 556
    • View Profile
How does forcing an uninformed voter to make an uninformed vote produce any value for anyone?

The idea would be to force the uniformed to become informed, or at minimum more informed than they would otherwise be.

Imagine if US citizens were taxed at a higher rate if they elected not to vote; the general population would be orders of magnitude more informed on the political process.

Really, do folks have a right to the benefits of a democratic society if they cannot be bothered to vote?

Do BTS shareholders have a right to yield if they cannot be bothered to vote?

"Hey, use the system to transfer and store value. But if you want the benefits (yield) you need to participate (vote)."

People use BTC right now without voting and receive no yield.

Is it so unreasonable to say "Using BTS gives you all the benefits of BTC and then some. In addition, if you want to take the time, you can vote and be compensated by earning yield."

I think the mindset needs to change from 'yield is an entitlement' to 'yield is a privilege that is earned'.
« Last Edit: November 14, 2014, 09:10:50 pm by OldMan »

Offline Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2908
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BitShares: Stan
How does forcing an uninformed voter to make an uninformed vote produce any value for anyone?
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract of any kind.   These are merely my opinions which I reserve the right to change at any time.

Offline oldman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 556
    • View Profile
I've addressed this issue before; voter apathy will be a serious liability when BTS scales.

The only way to do this properly is to withhold/autoescrow yield until the user votes.

Users have full functionality but cannot access their yield until they participate in the election process.

The autoescrow kicks in once a year, say Jan 1st.

The user is notified it is election day; until they vote with their full stake all yield accrued from Jan 1st forward will be held in escrow.

User makes a few clicks, perhaps picks a slate, and yield is released.

I feel strongly there is no positive incentive that can effectively counteract apathy; there has to be a consequence that is mild but annoying enough to deal with.

Offline FreeTrade

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 700
    • View Profile
what about to pay the top x slate publishers?

Slate publishers (directors) should be paid. I'm in favour of directors setting their own pay rate as delegates.
“People should be more sophisticated? How are you gonna get that done?” - Jerry Seinfeld reply to Bill Maher

Offline liondani

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3737
  • Inch by inch, play by play
    • View Profile
    • My detailed info
  • BitShares: liondani
  • GitHub: liondani
what about to pay the top x slate publishers?

Sent from my ALCATEL ONE TOUCH 997D


Offline teenagecheese

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 134
    • View Profile
The minority of shareholders who care a lot. Not me.

No. The board of directors supervises.

The shareholders choose the board of directors.

The current bitshares model asks shareholders to vote for executives/employees (delegates) directly. Rather, it should ask shareholders to support directors (slate publishers). All the politics should be at that level - directors campaigning for shareholders' proxies, and delegates should only be asking for directors' support - not running campaigns themselves.

ok that's fine with me, good idea. But I don't want to have to do is all I'm saying. And I shouldn't have to to have the system function well. If my participation is necessary, bitshares is no good.

...and by the "smart guys who run google" I meant generally whoever makes decisions, so that could include the board of directors. The analogy was not meant to be so specific, just to say that the average Joe investor should not have to be involved except for under extraordinary circumstances.

Offline teenagecheese

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 134
    • View Profile

It is not that the 14% of stakeholders that are currently voting are doing a bad job. It is mainly that it is a security risk.

It's ok to have a 14% voting security risk because if those 14% do collude or whatever in a manner serious enough to really hurt things, the rest can respond by voting. Just make the system such that this can happen easily when it needs to, maybe a delay for implementations of large code changes so people have time to respond. There are a lot of ways to make this work without me being bothered most of the time.

It's the same thing with our govt. It works good enough for me so I don't waste my time with it. If they ever really start effing up I'll take some time to exercise my right to vote to change things. This is going to end up a lot like that and it's o.k. It is a better system because it is sooooo easy for people to vote when they want.

The ability to instantly update your vote is awesome too. That solves a huge problem with not being able to vote for the little guy for fear that you are just wasting your vote if barely anyone supports him. This could really be used in our current system to eliminate the two party dominance.

Offline FreeTrade

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 700
    • View Profile
The minority of shareholders who care a lot. Not me.

No. The board of directors supervises.

The shareholders choose the board of directors.

The current bitshares model asks shareholders to vote for executives/employees (delegates) directly. Rather, it should ask shareholders to support directors (slate publishers). All the politics should be at that level - directors campaigning for shareholders' proxies, and delegates should only be asking for directors' support - not running campaigns themselves.
“People should be more sophisticated? How are you gonna get that done?” - Jerry Seinfeld reply to Bill Maher

chryspano

  • Guest
What if every time the user tries to sent a transaction the wallet checks if the user is voting and if not then he is quickly asked to vote for a slate/group like "Developing, Marketing, Reliability... or Manual Voting" All the user has to do is one click to pick a slate/group, 2/3 of the voting power can go to delegates that are already voted in the 101 and the remaining 1/3 randomly amongst the rest, or something like that. If the user is not Manual Voting then he can be asked to choose a slate/group again in two weeks or a month.


Offline CoinHoarder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 660
  • In Cryptocoins I Trust
    • View Profile
Pragmatism.

I don't want to have to vote or think about voting ever. I should always be able to vote if I choose, but 99% of the time I don't want it to be even slightly present in my life. Humans are lazy and busy, they don't need or want anything else to do. A minority of people really care about this stuff, the politics, the ramifications for the future of man kind and freedom and finance. They should vote. I would love to see that happen, but not enough to do any work.

Owning/Using bitshares should be absolutely as easy as possible for as many people as possible. Who cares if a minority is in control as long as they are doing a good job and can always be voted out. I am here because I want to make money with the least effort possible. I am confident most people feel this way.

This is a product you are selling to people. A good, desirable product that will attract people should not add to the complications of their life, it should reduce them. You do want to attract people to use bitshares, right?

I agree with this. A system should be in place that automatically votes for these people. Leaving things the way they are is unacceptable both for security and public perception reasons. You need to protect people that won't protect themselves... IE. the reason for TITAN and protecting people's financial privacy... by not voting people are poking the bear so to speak. They may not care or not realize.. either way something should be done.

The minority of shareholders who care a lot. Not me.

Unless things get extremely ridiculous and on the verge of collapse and people rally me and make a big scene to get my attention, then I do still have the right to vote with my stake and I do it.
It is not that the 14% of stakeholders that are currently voting are doing a bad job. It is mainly that it is a security risk.
« Last Edit: November 14, 2014, 06:20:22 pm by CoinHoarder »
https://www.decentralized.tech/ -> Market Data, Portfolios, Information, Links, Reviews, Forums, Blogs, Etc.
https://www.cryptohun.ch/ -> Tradable Blockchain Asset PvP Card Game

Offline teenagecheese

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 134
    • View Profile
The minority of shareholders who care a lot. Not me.

Unless things get extremely ridiculous and on the verge of collapse and people rally me and make a big scene to get my attention, then I do still have the right to vote with my stake and I do it.

Offline FreeTrade

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 700
    • View Profile
When I buy stock in Google, I want to completely trust those really smart guys there to do a great job and do absolutely nothing myself.

Follow that thought . . . what if those smart guys go off the rails, or start acting corruptly . . . who supervises them?
“People should be more sophisticated? How are you gonna get that done?” - Jerry Seinfeld reply to Bill Maher

Offline hpenvy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 451
    • View Profile
Some interesting ideas:

- Slates should have 'owners'
- Slates should be 'subscribable'
- Users will subscribe to slates from trusted, public figures
- Users who subscribe to these slates are notified when changes occur
- Slate owners are given the option to write reasons why they are changing their slate
- If the user takes the time to review the change, then they can accept, deny, or make an amendment to the change
- If the user does not review the change after a given time period, it will automatically be set to accept
- Popular slates should be readily available within the client

I like this. Representative democracy more effective than direct democracy.

+1

If we're very very very lucky, we'll be able to get members to point to a guy and say 'I trust him to make good decisions about delegates, here's my proxy(slate)'.  That is the very most we can hope for.

The point is you shouldn't be trying to get lucky. You need to figure out a way to not have to have people vote unless they are naturally driven to by their own prerogative. Most people should never be bothered in the slightest. Even asking them to think about being bothered is unacceptable. When I buy stock in Google, I want to completely trust those really smart guys there to do a great job and do absolutely nothing myself. The most I want is to know I can vote and participate if I choose. It MUST NOT be necessary for the majority to participate for bitshares to function! This is critical.

 +5%
=============
btsx address: hpenvy
Tips appreciated for good work

Offline teenagecheese

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 134
    • View Profile
Some interesting ideas:

- Slates should have 'owners'
- Slates should be 'subscribable'
- Users will subscribe to slates from trusted, public figures
- Users who subscribe to these slates are notified when changes occur
- Slate owners are given the option to write reasons why they are changing their slate
- If the user takes the time to review the change, then they can accept, deny, or make an amendment to the change
- If the user does not review the change after a given time period, it will automatically be set to accept
- Popular slates should be readily available within the client

I like this. Representative democracy more effective than direct democracy.

+1

If we're very very very lucky, we'll be able to get members to point to a guy and say 'I trust him to make good decisions about delegates, here's my proxy(slate)'.  That is the very most we can hope for.

The point is you shouldn't be trying to get lucky. You need to figure out a way to not have to have people vote unless they are naturally driven to by their own prerogative. Most people should never be bothered in the slightest. Even asking them to think about being bothered is unacceptable. When I buy stock in Google, I want to completely trust those really smart guys there to do a great job and do absolutely nothing myself. The most I want is to know I can vote and participate if I choose. It MUST NOT be necessary for the majority to participate for bitshares to function! This is critical.

Offline FreeTrade

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 700
    • View Profile
Some interesting ideas:

- Slates should have 'owners'
- Slates should be 'subscribable'
- Users will subscribe to slates from trusted, public figures
- Users who subscribe to these slates are notified when changes occur
- Slate owners are given the option to write reasons why they are changing their slate
- If the user takes the time to review the change, then they can accept, deny, or make an amendment to the change
- If the user does not review the change after a given time period, it will automatically be set to accept
- Popular slates should be readily available within the client

I like this. Representative democracy more effective than direct democracy.

+1

If we're very very very lucky, we'll be able to get members to point to a guy and say 'I trust him to make good decisions about delegates, here's my proxy(slate)'.  That is the very most we can hope for.
“People should be more sophisticated? How are you gonna get that done?” - Jerry Seinfeld reply to Bill Maher

Offline FreeTrade

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 700
    • View Profile
2.  The next least a person can do is express trust in some other slate, by overriding their wallet's default slate and pointing to one provided by some celebrity or developer or personality you trust.

This is the level to aim for.

It's late. I'll write more about this in time.
“People should be more sophisticated? How are you gonna get that done?” - Jerry Seinfeld reply to Bill Maher

Offline teenagecheese

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 134
    • View Profile
Pragmatism.

I don't want to have to vote or think about voting ever. I should always be able to vote if I choose, but 99% of the time I don't want it to be even slightly present in my life. Humans are lazy and busy, they don't need or want anything else to do. A minority of people really care about this stuff, the politics, the ramifications for the future of man kind and freedom and finance. They should vote. I would love to see that happen, but not enough to do any work.

Owning/Using bitshares should be absolutely as easy as possible for as many people as possible. Who cares if a minority is in control as long as they are doing a good job and can always be voted out. I am here because I want to make money with the least effort possible. I am confident most people feel this way.

This is a product you are selling to people. A good, desirable product that will attract people should not add to the complications of their life, it should reduce them. You do want to attract people to use bitshares, right?
« Last Edit: November 14, 2014, 05:41:41 pm by teenagecheese »

Offline bobmaloney

Low voter turnout is a good thing.  It means people aren't pissed off.

In the case of Bitshares, I agree.


But it can also mean that those with the ability to vote don't feel it will change whatever they are pissed about.
I think this reasoning represents a significant percentage of the non-voter attitude in the US, at least - and I agree with them.
"The crows seemed to be calling his name, thought Caw."
- Jack Handey (SNL)

Offline sschechter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 380
    • View Profile
Low voter turnout is a good thing.  It means people aren't pissed off.
BTSX: sschechter
PTS: PvBUyPrDRkJLVXZfvWjdudRtQgv1Fcy5Qe

Offline davidpbrown

Some interesting ideas:

- Slates should have 'owners'
- Slates should be 'subscribable'
- Users will subscribe to slates from trusted, public figures
- Users who subscribe to these slates are notified when changes occur
- Slate owners are given the option to write reasons why they are changing their slate
- If the user takes the time to review the change, then they can accept, deny, or make an amendment to the change
- If the user does not review the change after a given time period, it will automatically be set to accept
- Popular slates should be readily available within the client

I like this. Representative democracy more effective than direct democracy.
฿://1CBxm54Ah5hiYxiUtD7JGYRXykT5Z6ZuMc

Offline fluxer555

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 749
    • View Profile
Some interesting ideas:

- Slates should have 'owners'
- Slates should be 'subscribable'
- Users will subscribe to slates from trusted, public figures
- Users who subscribe to these slates are notified when changes occur
- Slate owners are given the option to write reasons why they are changing their slate
- If the user takes the time to review the change, then they can accept, deny, or make an amendment to the change
- If the user does not review the change after a given time period, it will automatically be set to accept
- Popular slates should be readily available within the client

Offline kokojie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 286
    • View Profile
At a min we need to make it easier to vote.  I don't view voter apathy as a bad thing in all cases. It is too hard to figure out how to vote. The thumbs up thumbs down would be great if it worked. I don't like the fact that I must select 101 different people in order for my vote to be counted. Why can I go through and thumb up a single delegate and the gui takes and votes my stake. Or I select 10 or 20 delegates with a check mark system and click vote stake and be done?

Wait, I believe you don't actually have to select 101 for your vote to count. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Offline Gentso1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 931
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: gentso
At a min we need to make it easier to vote.  I don't view voter apathy as a bad thing in all cases. It is too hard to figure out how to vote. The thumbs up thumbs down would be great if it worked. I don't like the fact that I must select 101 different people in order for my vote to be counted. Why can I go through and thumb up a single delegate and the gui takes and votes my stake. Or I select 10 or 20 delegates with a check mark system and click vote stake and be done?
You don't have to pick up all 101 delegates in order for your vote to be counted. One delegate is minimum so your vote can be counted. System prefers if you vote for all 101 delegates, but that doesn't mean that you need to vote for all 101 delegate.
You are right.
You just get the "This account is not voting with some of its stake. You should consider updating your vote."
Making voting simpler is desirable, but even when it becomes so simple a caveman can do it, the most time consuming part will always remain:  becoming informed.


This is so true but the same argument can be made for VOTE. We want to make it easier for the masses to vote but in reality it not necessarily a good thing for the masses to vote.

Ever seen the movie Idiocracy http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/

Either way no matter the reason its my opinion it should be made easier, for better or worse.




« Last Edit: November 14, 2014, 05:10:27 pm by Gentso1 »

Offline Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2908
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BitShares: Stan
Making voting simpler is desirable, but even when it becomes so simple a caveman can do it, the most time consuming part will always remain:  becoming informed.

Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract of any kind.   These are merely my opinions which I reserve the right to change at any time.

Offline Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2908
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BitShares: Stan
Well... the main reason that led me to bring this up... I have been debating a lot of Bitcoin/Altcoin people as to the merits of DPoS versus PoW. I am telling a half truth when I tell them that someone needs to obtain 51% of the money supply to attack the network... due to voter apathy that is not the case. It is not only a security issue, it is a public perception issue of a possible security issue. If someone really advertised that instead you only need 14% of the money supply due to voter apathy, I think people will think more negatively of DPoS. How can we expect people to trust DPoS if it isn't as secure as it can theoretically be? IT doesn't look good in a debate when someone brings up that only 14% of the money supply is needed... they give me a hard enough time about 51% being bad enough.

Ok, so then it does make some sense to set the default to what the trusted wallet developers are doing.  Now an attacker needs to override all those defaults, which requires a very public campaign to point out why those defaults can't be trusted.   

Power ultimately lies with individual shareholders, but there is a huge burden of proof that an attacker would have to provide to motivate them to pay attention and act.  Nothing can be done in the dark without acquiring an unlikely high percent of stake (and driving up the price for everyone else's benefit.) 

The trusted wallet developers would essentially acting in the role of the Big Five mining companies that control all decisions for Bitcoin.  Except with BitShares they can be fired in ten seconds for violations of trust without the whistleblower needing to buy vast warehouses of hardware to unseat them.  Just make your case to the shareholders.
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract of any kind.   These are merely my opinions which I reserve the right to change at any time.

Offline davidpbrown

A lot could be done to make voting simpler. If voting is important, then a relative amount of effort is needed to make that obvious.

I'm not clear if my holding gets shared equal weighting between those I vote for. If I only vote for 1, do they get full effect or no difference from if I had voted for 2?

Having an alert to the effect that this will transfer the account balance, is not what user will expect. Someone wanting to vote, is not expecting to transfer their balance somewhere.. transferring it to the same account does not make sense. Also, it's hard to keep in mind which 101 delegates you prefer. Perhaps just encourage people to an optimal number of 10 or more.


Off topic perhaps but I do not understand how we know that 101 delegates is sufficient to provide a robust network. Are we expecting more delegates in future? In the event BitShares goes large, what is to prevent a simple DDOS attack on the core delegates??
« Last Edit: November 14, 2014, 04:50:48 pm by davidpbrown »
฿://1CBxm54Ah5hiYxiUtD7JGYRXykT5Z6ZuMc

Offline vegolino

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 450
  • Reality is Information
    • View Profile
At a min we need to make it easier to vote.  I don't view voter apathy as a bad thing in all cases. It is too hard to figure out how to vote. The thumbs up thumbs down would be great if it worked. I don't like the fact that I must select 101 different people in order for my vote to be counted. Why can I go through and thumb up a single delegate and the gui takes and votes my stake. Or I select 10 or 20 delegates with a check mark system and click vote stake and be done?
You don't have to pick up all 101 delegates in order for your vote to be counted. One delegate is minimum so your vote can be counted. System prefers if you vote for all 101 delegates, but that doesn't mean that you need to vote for all 101 delegate.

Offline Frodo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 351
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: frodo
I don't know if I have missed anything but what happened to the concept of RDPOS? It could be a pretty good solution imo.

Besides that I would expect more participation once there are options to vote with stake in cold storage.

Offline fluxer555

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 749
    • View Profile
I have a proposed solution to voter apathy, as well as other problems here:

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10642

It's not perfect; some assumed facts are wrong, however the concepts still have value, and arhag has contributed improvements to it as well.

Offline CoinHoarder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 660
  • In Cryptocoins I Trust
    • View Profile
Well... the main reason that led me to bring this up... I have been debating a lot of Bitcoin/Altcoin people as to the merits of DPoS versus PoW. I am telling a half truth when I tell them that someone needs to obtain 51% of the money supply to attack the network... due to voter apathy that is not the case. It is not only a security issue, it is a public perception issue of a possible security issue. If someone really advertised that instead you only need 14% of the money supply due to voter apathy, I think people will think more negatively of DPoS. How can we expect people to trust DPoS if it isn't as secure as it can theoretically be? IT doesn't look good in a debate when someone brings up that only 14% of the money supply is needed... they give me a hard enough time about 51% being bad enough.
https://www.decentralized.tech/ -> Market Data, Portfolios, Information, Links, Reviews, Forums, Blogs, Etc.
https://www.cryptohun.ch/ -> Tradable Blockchain Asset PvP Card Game

Offline Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2908
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BitShares: Stan
I guess we could have tiers of apathy:

1.  The least a person can do is express trust in the source of their wallet, by merely downloading it.  So that wallet can point to a default slate which expresses their preference to just trust the wallet provider they already have trusted with their private keys.
2.  The next least a person can do is express trust in some other slate, by overriding their wallet's default slate and pointing to one provided by some celebrity or developer or personality you trust.
3.  The next, next, least a person can do is override some entries in their hero-provided slate with a few delegates you happen to know.
4.  The last level of least you can do is to become fully informed and hand-pick your top 101.

In the event of a crisis, a rebel leader can publish a slate and campaign to get everyone to switch slates.

Other than paying people to vote, this seems like the best solution so far. I actually really like this "tier of apathy" idea. You made my laugh irl... "the least a person can do... the next... the next, next... the next, next, next"  :D

Yeah, if I just spent many days evaluating 300 delegates to responsibly pick my Top 101, the last thing I want to do is to pay other people to water down that hard work with random uninformed votes.  If they want to be lazy (who doesn't?), they should just pick a slate that somebody spent some time thinking about.

EDIT:  Alternatively, they could just pick the average of what everyone who cares is doing.   Oh, wait, that's what not voting at all does.  :)
« Last Edit: November 14, 2014, 04:38:19 pm by Stan »
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract of any kind.   These are merely my opinions which I reserve the right to change at any time.

Offline CoinHoarder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 660
  • In Cryptocoins I Trust
    • View Profile
It's more than a month(maybe two) since the last time I opened my wallet, I can't even remember what version I have installed.

I would like to update my votes more often but I'm lazy compiling every time a new version is out.

When we have a "final" and more stable version I think people will show more interest.

- Make it idiot proof
- Create a simple video explaining the need and tips on how to evaluate delegates
- Push out through twitter/newsletter

Do you guys seriously expect all shareholders to go through and take the time to vet 101 delegates, select them one by one in the client, and then update their votes? Simply researching about 101 delegates seems like a lot more time than most people would be willing to contribute (if there is no incentive or a system in place like "tiers of apathy".) I can tell you I personally am too lazy to do this. :-\
https://www.decentralized.tech/ -> Market Data, Portfolios, Information, Links, Reviews, Forums, Blogs, Etc.
https://www.cryptohun.ch/ -> Tradable Blockchain Asset PvP Card Game

Offline Gentso1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 931
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: gentso
At a min we need to make it easier to vote.  I don't view voter apathy as a bad thing in all cases. It is too hard to figure out how to vote. The thumbs up thumbs down would be great if it worked. I don't like the fact that I must select 101 different people in order for my vote to be counted. Why can I go through and thumb up a single delegate and the gui takes and votes my stake. Or I select 10 or 20 delegates with a check mark system and click vote stake and be done?

Offline kokojie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 286
    • View Profile
My first suggestion would be refund the transaction fee for voting, so there is no "dis-incentive" to vote. Or if that's impossible, just pay a small fee every 30 days or so, for stakes that has voted at least 51 delegates.

Offline CoinHoarder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 660
  • In Cryptocoins I Trust
    • View Profile
I guess we could have tiers of apathy:

1.  The least a person can do is express trust in the source of their wallet, by merely downloading it.  So that wallet can point to a default slate which expresses their preference to just trust the wallet provider they already have trusted with their private keys.
2.  The next least a person can do is express trust in some other slate, by overriding their wallet's default slate and pointing to one provided by some celebrity or developer or personality you trust.
3.  The next, next, least a person can do is override some entries in their hero-provided slate with a few delegates you happen to know.
4.  The last level of least you can do is to become fully informed and hand-pick your top 101.

In the event of a crisis, a rebel leader can publish a slate and campaign to get everyone to switch slates.

Other than paying people to vote, this seems like the best solution so far. I actually really like this "tier of apathy" idea. You made my laugh irl... "the least a person can do... the next... the next, next... the next, next, next"  :D
« Last Edit: November 14, 2014, 04:18:07 pm by CoinHoarder »
https://www.decentralized.tech/ -> Market Data, Portfolios, Information, Links, Reviews, Forums, Blogs, Etc.
https://www.cryptohun.ch/ -> Tradable Blockchain Asset PvP Card Game

Offline CoinHoarder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 660
  • In Cryptocoins I Trust
    • View Profile
We could automatically set all the unused votes to random delegates (essentially raising the noise floor).
This is essentially what you would get anyway if you artificially motivate people to vote who don't care enough to study their options.
Now we have 100% voter "turnout".  Are we any better off?

 :)

Maybe something along these lines would work, but the way you proposed it I feel like there is something wrong... I can't quite put my finger on it but I feel there must be some issue. Since the unused votes vastly outweigh the use votes, it would override the will of the people that actually took time to analyze delegates and voted.

Emski's tweak seems a little better but the same problem still exists. Core developers with >3% pay could get voted out. Also it can possibly open up attack vectors. If it's a numbers game where delegates are selected at random then someone could create a large number of delegates, which gives them a much larger chance of being selected and do something nefarious such as collude with the price feeds and trade for a profit.
https://www.decentralized.tech/ -> Market Data, Portfolios, Information, Links, Reviews, Forums, Blogs, Etc.
https://www.cryptohun.ch/ -> Tradable Blockchain Asset PvP Card Game

Offline Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2908
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BitShares: Stan
We need to figure out a way to provide incentive for shareholders to vote. The biggest issue I see is with 13.06% of the money supply, someone could perform a 51% attack. This is obviously much less ideal than 51% of the money supply. There are a lot of other issues pertaining to voter apathy as well. No offense to those that have tried organizing these things, but I'm not talking about some silly "election week", campaigning, or mumble hangouts. People need incentive to vote or else they never will. We need to figure out a way that shareholders can be paid to vote. IE. a percentage of fees.. a percentage of dilution.. a little extra dilution.. a delegate... somehow, some way... people need incentive to vote. The current system is not working, the delegate with the most votes has 13.06%. How is this OK with everyone??!?

We could automagically set all the unused votes to random delegates (essentially raising the noise floor).
This is essentially what you would get anyway if you artificially motivate people to vote who don't care enough to study their options.
Now we have 100% voter "turnout".  Are we any better off?

 :)
I'd suggest half of unused votes to be assigned to delegates sorted by performance AND 3% max pay.

I guess we could have tiers of apathy:

1.  The least a person can do is express trust in the source of their wallet, by merely downloading it.  So that wallet can point to a default slate which expresses their preference to just trust the wallet provider they already have trusted with their private keys.
2.  The next least a person can do is express trust in some other slate, by overriding their wallet's default slate and pointing to one provided by some celebrity or developer or personality you trust.
3.  The next, next, least a person can do is override some entries in their hero-provided slate with a few delegates you happen to know.
4.  The last level of least you can do is to become fully informed and hand-pick your top 101.

In the event of a crisis, a rebel leader can publish a slate and campaign to get everyone to switch slates.
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract of any kind.   These are merely my opinions which I reserve the right to change at any time.

Offline donkeypong

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2329
    • View Profile
Do NOT allocate votes to random candidates unless there's some basic screening. So far, some delegates have been piss poor about doing their jobs well. They need to be screened somehow for performance, and then those that have met certain measures (such as implementing updates and producing blocks: pretty basic stuff) can have all the random votes. I'd agree with this if there were some basic screening. 

I also would make the voting feature very, very obvious, impossible to miss, in the GUI. Because CoinHoarder is right; this will not work well if the voting is as apathetic as it has been...or as hard to figure out.

chryspano

  • Guest
It's more than a month(maybe two) since the last time I opened my wallet, I can't even remember what version I have installed.

I would like to update my votes more often but I'm lazy compiling every time a new version is out.

When we have a "final" and more stable version I think people will show more interest.

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12922
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
I'd suggest half of unused votes to be assigned to delegates sorted by performance AND 3% max pay.
That would raise the barrier for entry in the top 101 .. maybe too difficult to market a 100% payrate delegate (in the beginning)

Offline hpenvy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 451
    • View Profile
- Make it idiot proof
- Create a simple video explaining the need and tips on how to evaluate delegates
- Push out through twitter/newsletter

=============
btsx address: hpenvy
Tips appreciated for good work

Offline emski

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1282
    • View Profile
    • http://lnkd.in/nPbhxG
We need to figure out a way to provide incentive for shareholders to vote. The biggest issue I see is with 13.06% of the money supply, someone could perform a 51% attack. This is obviously much less ideal than 51% of the money supply. There are a lot of other issues pertaining to voter apathy as well. No offense to those that have tried organizing these things, but I'm not talking about some silly "election week", campaigning, or mumble hangouts. People need incentive to vote or else they never will. We need to figure out a way that shareholders can be paid to vote. IE. a percentage of fees.. a percentage of dilution.. a little extra dilution.. a delegate... somehow, some way... people need incentive to vote. The current system is not working, the delegate with the most votes has 13.06%. How is this OK with everyone??!?

We could automagically set all the unused votes to random delegates (essentially raising the noise floor).
This is essentially what you would get anyway if you artificially motivate people to vote who don't care enough to study their options.
Now we have 100% voter "turnout".  Are we any better off?

 :)
I'd suggest half of unused votes to be assigned to delegates sorted by performance AND 3% max pay.

Offline CoinHoarder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 660
  • In Cryptocoins I Trust
    • View Profile
I think the biggest problem is -- voting is confusing. I'm fairly technically inclined, but I still have difficulty understanding just what the hell the client's talking about when it says "you are not voting with all of your stake"...

Needs to be better streamlined.

I doubt this fixes the issue. If 86.94% of the community doesn't realize there is voting involved with DPoS or doesn't know how to do it, then I have just lost faith in humanity and this community. I refuse to believe that is the answer. To me the only reason can be that it is not worth someone's time to redeem their genesis stake and/or vote for delegates because there is no incentive in doing so.
https://www.decentralized.tech/ -> Market Data, Portfolios, Information, Links, Reviews, Forums, Blogs, Etc.
https://www.cryptohun.ch/ -> Tradable Blockchain Asset PvP Card Game

Offline Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2908
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BitShares: Stan
We need to figure out a way to provide incentive for shareholders to vote. The biggest issue I see is with 13.06% of the money supply, someone could perform a 51% attack. This is obviously much less ideal than 51% of the money supply. There are a lot of other issues pertaining to voter apathy as well. No offense to those that have tried organizing these things, but I'm not talking about some silly "election week", campaigning, or mumble hangouts. People need incentive to vote or else they never will. We need to figure out a way that shareholders can be paid to vote. IE. a percentage of fees.. a percentage of dilution.. a little extra dilution.. a delegate... somehow, some way... people need incentive to vote. The current system is not working, the delegate with the most votes has 13.06%. How is this OK with everyone??!?

We could automagically set all the unused votes to random delegates (essentially raising the noise floor).
This is essentially what you would get anyway if you artificially motivate people to vote who don't care enough to study their options.
Now we have 100% voter "turnout".  Are we any better off?

 :)
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract of any kind.   These are merely my opinions which I reserve the right to change at any time.

Offline hpenvy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 451
    • View Profile
I think the biggest problem is -- voting is confusing. I'm fairly technically inclined, but I still have difficulty understanding just what the hell the client's talking about when it says "you are not voting with all of your stake"...

Needs to be better streamlined.

 +5%
=============
btsx address: hpenvy
Tips appreciated for good work

Offline nomoreheroes7

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 756
  • King of all the land
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: nomoreheroes7
I think the biggest problem is -- voting is confusing. I'm fairly technically inclined, but I still have difficulty understanding just what the hell the client's talking about when it says "you are not voting with all of your stake"...

Needs to be better streamlined.

Offline CoinHoarder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 660
  • In Cryptocoins I Trust
    • View Profile
We need to figure out a way to provide incentive for shareholders to vote. The biggest issue I see is with 13.06% of the money supply, someone could perform a 51% attack. This is obviously much less ideal than 51% of the money supply. There are a lot of other issues pertaining to voter apathy as well. No offense to those that have tried organizing these things, but I'm not talking about some silly "election week", campaigning, or mumble hangouts. People need incentive to vote or else they never will. We need to figure out a way that shareholders can be paid to vote. IE. a percentage of fees.. a percentage of dilution.. a little extra dilution.. a delegate... somehow, some way... people need incentive to vote. The current system is not working, the delegate with the most votes has 13.06%. How is this OK with everyone??!?
« Last Edit: November 14, 2014, 03:39:46 pm by CoinHoarder »
https://www.decentralized.tech/ -> Market Data, Portfolios, Information, Links, Reviews, Forums, Blogs, Etc.
https://www.cryptohun.ch/ -> Tradable Blockchain Asset PvP Card Game