Author Topic: exchange preparing for voting  (Read 27480 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline abit

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4662
    • View Profile
    • Abit's Hive Blog
  • BitShares: abit
  • GitHub: abitmore
I've seen you are participating in Anonymint's consensus algorithm discussion on BCT... I am looking forward to reading that thread but haven't had time. Is there anything useful you think could be implemented/tweaked in dPoS to improve it?

Yes, I've mentioned before that totally removing the voting element is the only way to go. That would at least bring DPOS inline with plain POS in terms of majority stake influence.

Rank the top N staking accounts by stake and automatically make them the block producers.
Imo your idea is no difference with "one stake can only vote for one witness".
In addition, with voting, small stake holders are able to speak by grouping.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2016, 07:37:20 pm by abit »
BitShares committee member: abit
BitShares witness: in.abit

Offline monsterer

there's no social contract/consensus that exchange should not vote, the problem is only how exchange should communicate with their users on this issue.
from committee perspective, the problem is how to define the rule to prevent one big account from controlling the whole network, maybe one option is to restrict the committee number one account can at most vote.
no proff to tell that exchanges are more likely to abuse power, they do not spend capital for the stake, but they are responsible for their users.

Once you let the genie out of the box, you won't be able to put it back in.
My opinions do not represent those of metaexchange unless explicitly stated.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline bitcrab

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1928
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: bitcrab
  • GitHub: bitcrab
there's no social contract/consensus that exchange should not vote, the problem is only how exchange should communicate with their users on this issue.
from committee perspective, the problem is how to define the rule to prevent one big account from controlling the whole network, maybe one option is to restrict the committee number one account can at most vote.
no proff to tell that exchanges are more likely to abuse power, they do not spend capital for the stake, but they are responsible for their users.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2016, 11:40:25 am by bitcrab »
Email´╝Übitcrab@qq.com

Offline monsterer

I've seen you are participating in Anonymint's consensus algorithm discussion on BCT... I am looking forward to reading that thread but haven't had time. Is there anything useful you think could be implemented/tweaked in dPoS to improve it?

Yes, I've mentioned before that totally removing the voting element is the only way to go. That would at least bring DPOS inline with plain POS in terms of majority stake influence.

Rank the top N staking accounts by stake and automatically make them the block producers.
My opinions do not represent those of metaexchange unless explicitly stated.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline CoinHoarder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 660
  • In Cryptocoins I Trust
    • View Profile
I think the negative publicity is greater that it only takes 15% stake to attack Bitshares than the fact that exchanges would have a large war chest to vote with.

They wouldn't necessarily be forging blocks anyways.. unless they happened to get voted in as a delegate. As stated upthread, maybe this would spur more people to use the DEX as well.

But the point is, the exchanges are *the* most likely candidates to abuse that voting power; they expended no capital to acquire the power, they can do whatever they like with it. This is a fundamental problem with (D)POS, the only thing we can do is try and have them uphold the social contract of not voting in the first place.

Hmm. Good point.

What if we added the ability for vote for a different proxy with different percentages of your stake. Then we would need to make a social contact... such as an exchange should vote with 25% of their stake for the top 4 proxies (25% each) so it balances out the voting power among multiple individuals.  The stake they contribute should not count towards that amount of votes considered to be the top 4 proxies.

Or... something similar to what was said up thread... that the votes be split among all of the committee members.

Or.. maybe a better idea.... a "stakeholder" proxy option. For example, if an exchange had 1% stake then that voting power should be split in between all of the remaining 99% of stakeholders evenly. This eliminates politics from the equation, and at the same time makes the network safer.

I've seen you are participating in Anonymint's consensus algorithm discussion on BCT... I am looking forward to reading that thread but haven't had time. Is there anything useful you think could be implemented/tweaked in dPoS to improve it?
« Last Edit: January 11, 2016, 01:59:27 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 monsterer

I think the negative publicity is greater that it only takes 15% stake to attack Bitshares than the fact that exchanges would have a large war chest to vote with.

They wouldn't necessarily be forging blocks anyways.. unless they happened to get voted in as a delegate. As stated upthread, maybe this would spur more people to use the DEX as well.

But the point is, the exchanges are *the* most likely candidates to abuse that voting power; they expended no capital to acquire the power, they can do whatever they like with it. This is a fundamental problem with (D)POS, the only thing we can do is try and have them uphold the social contract of not voting in the first place.
My opinions do not represent those of metaexchange unless explicitly stated.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline CoinHoarder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 660
  • In Cryptocoins I Trust
    • View Profile
Thats the point .. there never really was an exchange-novote-'social consensus'

And even if there was, the exchanges wouldnt know

There is always a stink kicked up when an exchange is discovered to be forging blocks with other people's stake, in any POS currency. The social contract revolves around negative publicity.

I think the negative publicity is greater that it only takes 15% stake to attack Bitshares than the fact that exchanges would have a large war chest to vote with.

They wouldn't necessarily be forging blocks anyways.. unless they happened to get voted in as a delegate. As stated upthread, maybe this would spur more people to use the DEX as well.
https://www.decentralized.tech/ -> Market Data, Portfolios, Information, Links, Reviews, Forums, Blogs, Etc.
https://www.cryptohun.ch/ -> Tradable Blockchain Asset PvP Card Game

Offline monsterer

Thats the point .. there never really was an exchange-novote-'social consensus'

And even if there was, the exchanges wouldnt know

There is always a stink kicked up when an exchange is discovered to be forging blocks with other people's stake, in any POS currency. The social contract revolves around negative publicity.
My opinions do not represent those of metaexchange unless explicitly stated.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12922
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
Thats the point .. there never really was an exchange-novote-'social consensus'

And even if there was, the exchanges wouldnt know

Offline abit

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4662
    • View Profile
    • Abit's Hive Blog
  • BitShares: abit
  • GitHub: abitmore
Have the exchange's distribute their voting power equally through all committee members. That way it shouldn't make much difference. For example, everyone would have +50M votes. It's a lot, but at least it's more distributed.

That's the same as them not voting, which is much better because then its easier to spot exchanges which do vote, thereby breaking the social contract.
Have you contacted them about this social contract because I have not .. and  I dont think they know about it ...
Sorry, but which social contract are you talking about?
BitShares committee member: abit
BitShares witness: in.abit

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12922
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
Have the exchange's distribute their voting power equally through all committee members. That way it shouldn't make much difference. For example, everyone would have +50M votes. It's a lot, but at least it's more distributed.

That's the same as them not voting, which is much better because then its easier to spot exchanges which do vote, thereby breaking the social contract.
Have you contacted them about this social contract because I have not .. and  I dont think they know about it ...

Offline abit

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4662
    • View Profile
    • Abit's Hive Blog
  • BitShares: abit
  • GitHub: abitmore
Have the exchange's distribute their voting power equally through all committee members. That way it shouldn't make much difference. For example, everyone would have +50M votes. It's a lot, but at least it's more distributed.

That's the same as them not voting, which is much better because then its easier to spot exchanges which do vote, thereby breaking the social contract.
Distributing their voting power among several proxies may make more sense.
BitShares committee member: abit
BitShares witness: in.abit

Offline monsterer

Have the exchange's distribute their voting power equally through all committee members. That way it shouldn't make much difference. For example, everyone would have +50M votes. It's a lot, but at least it's more distributed.

That's the same as them not voting, which is much better because then its easier to spot exchanges which do vote, thereby breaking the social contract.
My opinions do not represent those of metaexchange unless explicitly stated.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline Akado

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2752
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: akado
Have the exchange's distribute their voting power equally through all committee members. That way it shouldn't make much difference. For example, everyone would have +50M votes. It's a lot, but at least it's more distributed.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline abit

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4662
    • View Profile
    • Abit's Hive Blog
  • BitShares: abit
  • GitHub: abitmore
99% of the exchanges can't even follow simple development updates on github. people encouraging them to use their users' funds just want to see the world burn
So your suggestion? Hard-code a list of exchanges and prevent them from voting?

DO something please.

BitShares committee member: abit
BitShares witness: in.abit