0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: gamey on January 05, 2016, 08:42:10 amI am still not sure this idea addresses the problem it attempts to overcome. I think it is just a matter of moving around numbers, but I am too lazy to try to prove it to myself. I was hoping someone could explain it to me a bit better... Simple calculation here:Assume that there are 100 committee member positions, and overall 100 stakes distributed to 100 holders (and many others have 0 stake)* if one stake can be voted to only one member, then who owns 51 stakes would be able to vote in at most 51 members;* if one stake can be voted to 100 members, then who owns 51 stakes would be able to vote in all 100 members.
I am still not sure this idea addresses the problem it attempts to overcome. I think it is just a matter of moving around numbers, but I am too lazy to try to prove it to myself. I was hoping someone could explain it to me a bit better...
Silence in DPOS does not mean consent. Otherwise the share price would have risen on the back of the merger and various 'value adding' dilutionary activities. In DPOS dissent is expressed through selling. http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bitshares/#charts
I will say that restricting voting is better in human ability terms. By this I mean that by not being able to vote on multiple committee members, you are reducing the time burden required to vote. One only has to research one committee member versus creating a list. Maybe this factor is more important than the objective outlined in the original post? Perhaps reduce voting to one member, then let the member distribute their excess votes?
QuoteThe point of DAC is not decentralization, the point is to make profits. To take care of the profitability we need somebody to make good decisions on blockchain parameters. This is what committee is for. It is not very reasonable to do decentralization just because decentralization. You have to always justify it.DAC surely should be dencentralized, otherwise it should not be named DAC,
The point of DAC is not decentralization, the point is to make profits. To take care of the profitability we need somebody to make good decisions on blockchain parameters. This is what committee is for. It is not very reasonable to do decentralization just because decentralization. You have to always justify it.
actually in my view currently Bitshares 2.0 is more like a country than a company, because its revenue comes from the fees paid by the shareholders, in another word, more exactly the fees can be called tax.for a company, normally the more revenue, the better, but this is not the case for a country. high revenue of a country often means high tax rate, and high burden of the people. these all always deactivate the economy.
Quote from: Stan on January 04, 2016, 03:48:51 pmIf a company has a billion shareholders each with one share and they all vote for the same people, is it not still decentralized (because they had the option to vote differently)?If all but one of those shareholders chooses not to vote, thereby allowing the last shareholder to select the committee all by herself, is it not still decentralized (because they still had the option to vote)?As long as each share has the decentralized option to vote, that's all we can and should do about decentralization.To do otherwise is to disenfranchise those who choose to vote in an attempt to redistribute their legitimately owned decision power onto others who don't want or deserve it.Forced decentralization is its own form of tyranny.this is not forced decentralization, this is seeking more reasonable voting rules.think of the US election, 2 senators for each state, representatives numbers proportional to population, according to your logic, is the senator voting logic deprive the power of the people from the state with more population?maybe you can say that, but the point is that the designers are seeking some balance, follow the population based logic and meanwhile prevent "Tyranny of Majority" .we now obviously need to prevent "Tyranny of Dictator", we need to design the rule accordingly. it may deprive the power of one account to control the whole committee, but this is necessary.
If a company has a billion shareholders each with one share and they all vote for the same people, is it not still decentralized (because they had the option to vote differently)?If all but one of those shareholders chooses not to vote, thereby allowing the last shareholder to select the committee all by herself, is it not still decentralized (because they still had the option to vote)?As long as each share has the decentralized option to vote, that's all we can and should do about decentralization.To do otherwise is to disenfranchise those who choose to vote in an attempt to redistribute their legitimately owned decision power onto others who don't want or deserve it.Forced decentralization is its own form of tyranny.
Quote from: bitcrab on January 04, 2016, 03:17:14 pmQuote from: xeroc on January 04, 2016, 08:28:06 amHo does this help AT ALL?If you only allow to vote for 3 witnesses, then we have 3 witnesses from china, 3 from europe and 3 from the US. all of them will have LESS votes and will be easier to overtakenot easier than now, because each people's voting power will decrease.diversify will help a global DAC, QuoteThe point of DAC is not decentralization, the point is to make profits. To take care of the profitability we need somebody to make good decisions on blockchain parameters. This is what committee is for. It is not very reasonable to do decentralization just because decentralization. You have to always justify it.DAC surely should be dencentralized, otherwise it should not be named DAC, actually in my view currently Bitshares 2.0 is more like a country than a company, because its revenue comes from the fees paid by the shareholders, in another word, more exactly the fees can be called tax.for a company, normally the more revenue, the better, but this is not the case for a country. high revenue of a country often means high tax rate, and high burden of the people. these all always deactivate the economy.at first Bitshares announced to be a decentralized autonomous company, but up to now it is not really decentralized yet, we need to improve further, we need to keep updating the management infrastructure to what we really needed, but anyway decentralization is needed. as a company, we should not put the company under the control of CEO himself. the CEO should report to the board and work under the supervision of the board.If a company has a billion shareholders each with one share and they all vote for the same people, is it not still decentralized (because they had the option to vote differently)?If all but one of those shareholders chooses not to vote, thereby allowing the last shareholder to select the committee all by herself, is it not still decentralized (because they still had the option to vote)?As long as each share has the decentralized option to vote, that's all we can and should do about decentralization.To do otherwise is to disenfranchise those who choose to vote in an attempt to redistribute their legitimately owned decision power onto others who don't want or deserve it.Forced decentralization is its own form of tyranny.
Quote from: xeroc on January 04, 2016, 08:28:06 amHo does this help AT ALL?If you only allow to vote for 3 witnesses, then we have 3 witnesses from china, 3 from europe and 3 from the US. all of them will have LESS votes and will be easier to overtakenot easier than now, because each people's voting power will decrease.diversify will help a global DAC, QuoteThe point of DAC is not decentralization, the point is to make profits. To take care of the profitability we need somebody to make good decisions on blockchain parameters. This is what committee is for. It is not very reasonable to do decentralization just because decentralization. You have to always justify it.DAC surely should be dencentralized, otherwise it should not be named DAC, actually in my view currently Bitshares 2.0 is more like a country than a company, because its revenue comes from the fees paid by the shareholders, in another word, more exactly the fees can be called tax.for a company, normally the more revenue, the better, but this is not the case for a country. high revenue of a country often means high tax rate, and high burden of the people. these all always deactivate the economy.at first Bitshares announced to be a decentralized autonomous company, but up to now it is not really decentralized yet, we need to improve further, we need to keep updating the management infrastructure to what we really needed, but anyway decentralization is needed. as a company, we should not put the company under the control of CEO himself. the CEO should report to the board and work under the supervision of the board.
Ho does this help AT ALL?If you only allow to vote for 3 witnesses, then we have 3 witnesses from china, 3 from europe and 3 from the US. all of them will have LESS votes and will be easier to overtake
Quote from: xeroc on January 04, 2016, 08:28:06 amHo does this help AT ALL?If you only allow to vote for 3 witnesses, then we have 3 witnesses from china, 3 from europe and 3 from the US. all of them will have LESS votes and will be easier to overtakenot easier than now, because each people's voting power will decrease.diversify will help a global DAC, QuoteThe point of DAC is not decentralization, the point is to make profits. To take care of the profitability we need somebody to make good decisions on blockchain parameters. This is what committee is for. It is not very reasonable to do decentralization just because decentralization. You have to always justify it.DAC surely should be dencentralized, otherwise it should not be named DAC, actually in my view currently Bitshares 2.0 is more like a country than a company, because its revenue comes from the fees paid by the shareholders, in another word, more exactly the fees can be called tax.
for a company, normally the more revenue, the better, but this is not the case for a country. high revenue of a country often means high tax rate, and high burden of the people. these all always deactivate the economy.at first Bitshares announced to be a decentralized autonomous company, but up to now it is not really decentralized yet, we need to improve further, we need to keep updating the management infrastructure to what we really needed, but anyway decentralization is needed. as a company, we should not put the company under the control of CEO himself. the CEO should report to the board and work under the supervision of the board.
if you have bitcrab1, bitcrab2, bitcrab3, bitcrab4, bitcrab5... on top eleven, I'm sure BM will change the rule immediately
QuoteAlso, isn't the voting mechamism for witnesses same as it is for committee? If so, then we would have to also prevent shareholders for voting more than three witnesses.Almost: you cannot downvote witnesses, but could for committee members (afaik)
Also, isn't the voting mechamism for witnesses same as it is for committee? If so, then we would have to also prevent shareholders for voting more than three witnesses.
ya, there are always people that like to live under the rule of a dictator, because he think the dictator is the wisest people he ever met.but humankind finally select democracy, not because they cannot find wise people to be the ruler, but because they come to understand that unrestricted right will always lead to disaster. can anyone prove that each time the elected US President is always relied person? no one can prove, but few US people think US need to go back to monarchy, like north Korea. no need to explain.
DAC is not compatible with dictator, we built committee in order to push the decentralization, not to put it under one people's control, I think this is easy to understand.it's ok for you to trust BM mostly, you can support him by voting, but this is not the consensus of the whole community. the community need a mechanism to avoid dictatorship.
This makes sense. BM has about 45% of active voting power, so he voted in 5/11 of his own committee members, it's nothing wrong (at least by now).. theoretically he is able to vote in more inits with current rule.
Quote from: bitcrab on January 03, 2016, 11:47:48 amQuote from: Samupaha on January 03, 2016, 11:15:48 amThe rules of the real DAC are not changed whenever somebody is unhappy with the result of current voting.If you want to change the rules, you have to make a case that will prove that the new rules produce good and fair results no matter who are the voters or the candidates. The point of this is to have a sufficient mechanism to elect reliable people to change blockchain parameters. Not just this time but every time.I don't even see any reason why there is a need to decrease Bytemaster's power on blockchain parameters. On the contrary, I would like him to take more active participation on these decisions, because he knows the system best. So far he hasn't changed or proposed any parameters that I would consider harmful for Bitshares.ya, there are always people that like to live under the rule of a dictator, because he think the dictator is the wisest people he ever met.but humankind finally select democracy, not because they cannot find wise people to be the ruler, but because they come to understand that unrestricted right will always lead to disaster. can anyone prove that each time the elected US President is always relied person? no one can prove, but few US people think US need to go back to monarchy, like north Korea. no need to explain.DAC is not compatible with dictator, we built committee in order to push the decentralization, not to put it under one people's control, I think this is easy to understand.it's ok for you to trust BM mostly, you can support him by voting, but this is not the consensus of the whole community. the community need a mechanism to avoid dictatorship.So what am I missing? What would prevent someone from just splitting their stake across multiple accounts to get around this? It seems like a soft rule that is only meaningful to those who choose to stay within the parameters.
Quote from: Samupaha on January 03, 2016, 11:15:48 amThe rules of the real DAC are not changed whenever somebody is unhappy with the result of current voting.If you want to change the rules, you have to make a case that will prove that the new rules produce good and fair results no matter who are the voters or the candidates. The point of this is to have a sufficient mechanism to elect reliable people to change blockchain parameters. Not just this time but every time.I don't even see any reason why there is a need to decrease Bytemaster's power on blockchain parameters. On the contrary, I would like him to take more active participation on these decisions, because he knows the system best. So far he hasn't changed or proposed any parameters that I would consider harmful for Bitshares.ya, there are always people that like to live under the rule of a dictator, because he think the dictator is the wisest people he ever met.but humankind finally select democracy, not because they cannot find wise people to be the ruler, but because they come to understand that unrestricted right will always lead to disaster. can anyone prove that each time the elected US President is always relied person? no one can prove, but few US people think US need to go back to monarchy, like north Korea. no need to explain.DAC is not compatible with dictator, we built committee in order to push the decentralization, not to put it under one people's control, I think this is easy to understand.it's ok for you to trust BM mostly, you can support him by voting, but this is not the consensus of the whole community. the community need a mechanism to avoid dictatorship.
The rules of the real DAC are not changed whenever somebody is unhappy with the result of current voting.If you want to change the rules, you have to make a case that will prove that the new rules produce good and fair results no matter who are the voters or the candidates. The point of this is to have a sufficient mechanism to elect reliable people to change blockchain parameters. Not just this time but every time.I don't even see any reason why there is a need to decrease Bytemaster's power on blockchain parameters. On the contrary, I would like him to take more active participation on these decisions, because he knows the system best. So far he hasn't changed or proposed any parameters that I would consider harmful for Bitshares.
Correct if I'm wrong, but I have the understanding that when shareholders vote for committee, they don't vote only for individual members but for size of the committee also. If everybody votes for only three members, there won't be more than three members in the committee, and that's pretty much centralized then.
we now have voting in Bitshares 2.0, this made the platform far more decentralized than 1.0 stage.but it is still too centralized, one important reason is the voting rule for committee members, as each account can vote as many committee members as he/she like, a person with 5% BTS can easily control the committee.if we need real decentralization, we need to change this, I propose to restrict that one account can only vote at most 3 committee members.this will bring more decentralization and prevent dictatorship.any thoughts?I will prepare a BSIP issue if this get positive feedback from community.
Quote from: Samupaha on January 02, 2016, 04:29:50 pmWhat is exactly the problem you are trying to solve here? I think the system works as it should be working. Those who have the most BTS will have the most voting power.Bigger problem right now is that we don't have enough high quality committee members. One reason is the lack of GUI for committee, I suspect that many aren't interested using the text client.Correct if I'm wrong, but I have the understanding that when shareholders vote for committee, they don't vote only for individual members but for size of the committee also. If everybody votes for only three members, there won't be more than three members in the committee, and that's pretty much centralized then.we have more people that can act as good committee members, such as @clayop, @Bhuz, but they are now not voted in.on the contrary, we now have 5 inits accounts in the committee that taken the places.one fact is, among the current 11 active committee members, I am the only one that do not depend on BM's support.if one owns enough voting power, he can control all, and the necessary voting power is far less than 50%.we can not call such a platform a DAC. we need to make it a real DAC, this is the problem I want to solve.everyone voting 3 committee members will not result in centralization, because it is clearly not always the same 3 be voted.
What is exactly the problem you are trying to solve here? I think the system works as it should be working. Those who have the most BTS will have the most voting power.Bigger problem right now is that we don't have enough high quality committee members. One reason is the lack of GUI for committee, I suspect that many aren't interested using the text client.Correct if I'm wrong, but I have the understanding that when shareholders vote for committee, they don't vote only for individual members but for size of the committee also. If everybody votes for only three members, there won't be more than three members in the committee, and that's pretty much centralized then.
Quote from: xeroc on January 02, 2016, 03:37:05 pmI assume all proxies are honest until they fuck something up .. proxies have no way to prevent shareholders removing their votes from them ..Couldn't a proxy with enough support elect witnesses who refuse to process vote removals?
I assume all proxies are honest until they fuck something up .. proxies have no way to prevent shareholders removing their votes from them ..
Quote from: xeroc on January 02, 2016, 03:05:52 pmQuote from: sittingduck on January 02, 2016, 02:55:38 pmWe had this debate two years ago with agent 86. How we do it now is the same way as corps. Your approach has weaknesses greater than those you are attempting to fix. I can confirm this ..what we need are committee members and or loyal proxies with more (combined) voting power than any attacker .. thats all we needImo votes for committee members are different than votes for witnesses. If one have enough voting power to let herself stay as active witness, she may do something bad with it.But if one have enough voting power to stay in committee, she'll have less influence since there is at least one more voting round and a review period for decision making.
Quote from: sittingduck on January 02, 2016, 02:55:38 pmWe had this debate two years ago with agent 86. How we do it now is the same way as corps. Your approach has weaknesses greater than those you are attempting to fix. I can confirm this ..what we need are committee members and or loyal proxies with more (combined) voting power than any attacker .. thats all we need
We had this debate two years ago with agent 86. How we do it now is the same way as corps. Your approach has weaknesses greater than those you are attempting to fix.