BSIP22

[iamredbar]

I like this idea, but agree with Lucifer that it isn’t that simple. I do not like the idea of a blacklist either.

[ripplexiaoshan]

I have a big concern, if implementation of this BSIP will put the network into hands of major stakeholders. Obviously, most of the users are not interested in things like voting, politics, etc - they just use the service. This means that as soon as those votes will decay, we end up with only major stakeholders (having big amount of BTS) are actually voting. This may kill decentralization (which is quite weak even now), and turn Bitshares into private blockchain, owned by several major whales.

The situation will not be worse than now, as a lot of shareholders never vote.

[ripplexiaoshan]

I'll support this BSIP.

[clockwork]

I have a big concern, if implementation of this BSIP will put the network into hands of major stakeholders. Obviously, most of the users are not interested in things like voting, politics, etc - they just use the service. This means that as soon as those votes will decay, we end up with only major stakeholders (having big amount of BTS) are actually voting. This may kill decentralization (which is quite weak even now), and turn Bitshares into private blockchain, owned by several major whales.

hence why the insistence on voter education as well + proxy decay

[yury]

I have a big concern, if implementation of this BSIP will put the network into hands of major stakeholders. Obviously, most of the users are not interested in things like voting, politics, etc - they just use the service. This means that as soon as those votes will decay, we end up with only major stakeholders (having big amount of BTS) are actually voting. This may kill decentralization (which is quite weak even now), and turn Bitshares into private blockchain, owned by several major whales.   

[SubstantialAnything]

Linking in #1934 on voter apathy which was created out of the telegram discussion just now: https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-ui/issues/1934

[R]

Supported on my side under following conditions.

1. Expiring proxy assignments (expiry period longer than proxy's decaying period)
2. Voting portal to counter voter apathy
3. Stateful notifications in UI or voting portal:
   a) Prompt user to check/refresh his voting slate (if sufficiently decayed)
   b) In case of user with proxy set, notifications when proxy modifies voting slate

Raised an UI issue for the 3rd item: https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-ui/issues/1932

[yamtt]

It should have been like this long ago.

[SubstantialAnything]

Agreeing, I think this is pretty essential -  we have a great foundation in the community here already, and the risks outlined in BISP 22 make clear what's at stake. Something like this done well sits at the base of all other bitshares activities, and makes experimentation in other BISP's a little more palatable (looking at you, BISP 42).

To Clockwork's ideas above, I think the news and voting pages in the current UI can play a role in this. Noting Bill's suggestion in the link the Digital Lucifer posted above that a 'voter registration period' https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/issues/79#issuecomment-425977550) may make more sense for some audiences. I like the idea. 

[clockwork]

Supported on my side under following conditions.

1. Expiring proxy assignments (expiry period longer than proxy's decaying period)
2. Voting portal to counter voter apathy
3. Stateful notifications in UI or voting portal:
   a) Prompt user to check/refresh his voting slate (if sufficiently decayed)
   b) In case of user with proxy set, notifications when proxy modifies voting slate

[George_Bitspark]

Absolutely this is IMO the most important thing for Bitshares right now. Happy to back this however we can. Looking for input from Core team on implementation wise what can be done. Regarding blacklisting I do not support that in the existing BSIP22, I also think the 'DPOSHub' is probably out of scope of this too, perhaps can be added in future by the UI team.

@DL not sure what youre saying with multi level proxies, please be more specific how this relates to BSIP22?

[Digital Lucifer]

Its not that simple and it needs to be expanded/more specific. Please check my comment on multi-level proxies, its kinda related. And its important to understand both sides of the medal

https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/issues/79#issuecomment-418610701

Btw, after I've done some more detailed research, 'down-voting' would bring more war rather than balance and peace, so ignore that part.

[bench]

Support from my side, too.

[R]

I still support the idea behind BSIP 22, albeit perhaps without the blacklist functionality.

[startail]

I support this BSIP. It tackles the issue of ancient voting power that is used and forgotten.
A vote for something should decay of time, and actively recast to remain. This would make a more active/engaging community and would give ancient whale votes less of an impact when they start to decay.

I'm interested in seeing the discussion on this and a good way to implement it.