proposal to restrict voting numbers for committee members

[abit]

if you have bitcrab1, bitcrab2, bitcrab3, bitcrab4, bitcrab5... on top eleven, I'm sure BM will change the rule immediately

Sounds interesting.. Just do it!

[wallace]

if you have bitcrab1, bitcrab2, bitcrab3, bitcrab4, bitcrab5... on top eleven, I'm sure BM will change the rule immediately

[abit]

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.

Almost: you cannot downvote witnesses, but could for committee members (afaik)

I thought down votes are only for workers..

[xeroc]

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

edit:

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.

^^ this

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.

Almost: you cannot downvote witnesses, but could for committee members (afaik)

[Samupaha]

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.

Democracy in a country is a totally different thing than a democracy in a DAC. In a country everybody has a one vote and in a DAC every share has a one vote. So it is a build-in feature in DAC that voting power can be centralized – just like in any other company.

Also, there are lots of different governance models besides democracy and dictatorship. There has been lots of good critique of democracy, like Bryan Caplan's book The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies which explains why democracy usually results in disastrous politics. Also look Eric X. Li: A tale of two political systems.

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 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.

If you think we need more decentralization, you have to explain how it will exactly help us make more money.

As I said, I think more imporant is to elect high quality committee members. We need people who really understand how the system works so they can make wise decisions. When our blockchain is finetuned to be so good as it can be, we will be able to make lots of money.

When we are going to make fundamental changes to blockchain governance, you really need to analyze it fully. You can't just say "no need to explain" or "I think this is easy to understand". You have to explain the mechanism for step by step how this new change will result our blockchain to be better, and as a result of that, will make us more money.

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.

[gamey]

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.

I don't think it matters.  You are reducing the ability of everyone to vote linearly.  So he can only vote for 1/11, but he is competing against 1/11th the votes.  I may very well be wrong here, but intuitively it seems to be of little value.

[BTSdac]

support this!
and I have a other  suggestion
the Proxy can not get more than 7 times of vote than he own

[abit]

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.

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.

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.

[gamey]

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.

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.

[abit]

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.

You're correct on the "also voting for size" point. However there is a hard-coded minimum size of 11. If everybody votes for less than 11 committee members, there will be 11 members.

[bitcrab]

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.

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.

[Samupaha]

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.

[sudo]

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.

 

[Musewhale]

Agree to limit the number of elected people
 

[Xypher]

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.

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.

That's a scary situation to be in!