Approval Voting vs Delegation

[Agent86]

The reason is so minorities can still get some representation.

I don't think the "proportional representation issue" was ever a real problem that needed solving...

To clarify:
The majority that votes for delegate A is a different majority than the one that votes for delegate B.  The majority shareholders that trust delegate C are again a totally separate subset of shareholder stake than those voting for delegates A & B.

In the end, virtually everyone is part of one/some of these "majorities" and there is no disenfranchised minority.

"proportional representation" mostly has meaning in regard to a political party system and to me seems promoted in part to give political parties undeserved relevance.

[bytemaster]

Total cost of this approach is equal to an extra signature on every transaction.   The major win is actually the usability of the system.

The potential cost is the rate at which bad actors can be removed.  It requires manual intervention.

Though I suppose pre-emptive prevention of bad actors is likely better overall.

[muse-umum]

Overall, I think approval voting is a huge step in the right direction.

Sure... It is your idea after all.

LOL..

[tonyk]

I had never considered the random voting for privacy.  As a user/shareholder I'm not sure I'd bother with it much if it were an option.  I would want the big majority of my stake as a shareholder to vote for exactly who I want.  I might have a small "checking account" that handles most of the commerce type transactions and doesn't represent a big stake anyway so I don't bother with voting.  It would then be hard to tie those transactions to anything else.

The reason is so minorities can still get some representation.   Unbounded is not an option.  Setting the limit at 101 means there can only be a single majority.  By placing a limit to 33 each individual only gets a say in 1/3 of the delegates. 

This hybrid approach should have benefits of both ideas. 

I don't think the "proportional representation issue" was ever a real problem that needed solving... just people not thinking it through.   So if it were up to me, I wouldn't do anything for that reason.

Overall, I think approval voting is a huge step in the right direction.

Sure... It is your idea after all.

[Agent86]

I had never considered the random voting for privacy.  As a user/shareholder I'm not sure I'd bother with it much if it were an option.  I would want the big majority of my stake as a shareholder to vote for exactly who I want.  I might have a small "checking account" that handles most of the commerce type transactions and doesn't represent a big stake anyway so I don't bother with voting.  It would then be hard to tie those transactions to anything else.

The reason is so minorities can still get some representation.   Unbounded is not an option.  Setting the limit at 101 means there can only be a single majority.  By placing a limit to 33 each individual only gets a say in 1/3 of the delegates. 

This hybrid approach should have benefits of both ideas. 

I don't think the "proportional representation issue" was ever a real problem that needed solving... just people not thinking it through.   So if it were up to me, I wouldn't do anything for that reason.

Overall, I think approval voting is a huge step in the right direction.

[bytemaster]

Top 101 cannot all have 66 %. If each share holder is limited to 33 votes.   The best they could achieve is 66 delegates with 33% each. 

Got it! Thanks!

So a person cannot vote for more than 33 delegates with his whole stake. So this is approval voting with limit of maximum votes to 33% of 101 (number of elected delegates).
And the reason for this limitation is transaction size ?

The reason is so minorities can still get some representation.   Unbounded is not an option.  Setting the limit at 101 means there can only be a single majority.  By placing a limit to 33 each individual only gets a say in 1/3 of the delegates. 

This hybrid approach should have benefits of both ideas. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Agent86]

The big problem is that under Approval Voting even if you own 49% of the shares you may not get any delegate representation.
This coupled with the Targeted Growth model  https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=5199.msg68575#msg68575
could dilute the minority shareholders to oblivion.
(This would mean that I3 + the top 5 or 10 shareholders would effectively control everything)

This is not a "big problem" at all.  (I haven't had a chance to look at BMs changes so I will assume pure approval voting without limiting number of delegates you can vote for)

It's basically a completely unrealistic scenario, and if true would point to a deep deep division in the community.

For this scenario to be true, you have someone with 49% of stake who can't convince even 2% of the rest of the stakeholders to vote for their delegate?  That's pretty strange for everyone to not trust someone with such a large stake.  Not only that, but this other 51% would have to be super well coordinated in their opposition.  They must find 100 other delegates that they all vote for with 100% backing without any disagreement.  So you have a scenario where a stakeholder with 49% exclusively backs their delegate and then the rest of the network exclusively opposes this delegate and is 100% in agreement on 100 other delegates.  These 2 parties should probably go their separate ways because they obviously hate each other for some reason and have very different views on the direction of things.  If it's one person that holds that 49% they should probably figure out why everyone hates them before the DAC gets forked with their stake removed.

Edit: You also have to understand that the majority (51%) under any model ALWAYS holds the power if they are well coordinated.  But 51% can never abuse 49% because nothing stops the 49% from selling their shares until the DAC is worthless and forming their own DAC.  Don't buy shares of a DAC if you think it's controlled by a well coordinated shady group of 51% owners who you suspect don't have your interests at heart.

[emski]

Top 101 cannot all have 66 %. If each share holder is limited to 33 votes.   The best they could achieve is 66 delegates with 33% each. 

Got it! Thanks!

So a person cannot vote for more than 33 delegates with his whole stake. So this is approval voting with limit of maximum votes to 33% of 101 (number of elected delegates).
And the reason for this limitation is transaction size ?

[xeroc]

202 bytes per transaction , so much consume of resource , if each transaction must include a voting ?  I mean send a translation without a voting if the stakeholder don't want to change the voting
can the client with automatic voting mode judge if the stakeholder need to change the voting when send a translation.

Voting is based on STAKE .. if you move STAKE you need to either move vote or revote!

EDIT: the vote is stored in the unspent output

[BTSdac]

require an extra 202 bytes per transaction

202 bytes per transaction , so much consume of resource , if each transaction must include a voting ?  I mean send a translation without a voting if the stakeholder don't want to change the voting
can the client with automatic voting mode judge if the stakeholder need to change the voting when send a translation.

[bytemaster]

Top 101 cannot all have 66 %. If each share holder is limited to 33 votes.   The best they could achieve is 66 delegates with 33% each. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[emski]

The approach implemented allows each share to vote for a max of 1/3 of delegates.  This means someone with 33% is guaranteed representation. 

How this guarantees representation for a 33% stake?
Imagine 1000 registered delegates. Top 101 with 66% approval each. The entity controlling 33% stake could never elect his own delegate.

[bytemaster]

The big problem is that under Approval Voting even if you own 49% of the shares you may not get any delegate representation.
This coupled with the Targeted Growth model  https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=5199.msg68575#msg68575
could dilute the minority shareholders to oblivion.
(This would mean that I3 + the top 5 or 10 shareholders would effectively control everything)

The approach implemented allows each share to vote for a max of 1/3 of delegates.  This means someone with 33% is guaranteed representation. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[emski]

I need to ban BM from posting without PR review.

We aren't diluting the first chain, end of story. Edit: by "we" I mean "anywhere I have the final say"... looks like me amd dan and stan are out of sync about wtf the plan is

"Randomness" is an OPTIONAL feature for OPTIONAL PRIVACY ENHANCEMENT. Delegates are NOT selected randomly, you just fuzz your votes over time IF YOU SO CHOOSE.

A PR wouldn't allow you to post this also... publicly stating people inside the organization are "out of sync about wtf the plan is" doesn't do much about the confidence of potential investors.

[xeroc]

Approval voting has been implemented in a branch on our repo.  Changes were about 400 lines of code total and it is passing our basic unit tests.

I guess there will be a new test run for this voting scheme?!