Approval Voting vs Delegation

[emski]

Well if you have 51% you will obviously get all the delegate seats unless there is a limit on the amount of delegates you can vote for.
I personally think the limit as a very good idea.

If you have one entity that has 51%, you have bigger problems and you must trust this entity to use the system anyway.  Limiting the votes doesn't change this at all. 51% could control the network no matter what, and ignore votes cast for any other delegates, this is the nature of POS the same way that 51% of hashing power controls bitcoin (if one entity controls 51% of the hash power you must trust that entity to use the system).

Getting rid of the limit is a good idea and makes it harder for bad actors with less than 51% to get their unpopular delegates elected.  If a bad actor gets 51% stake the network must be forked to remove them regardless.

The fork can happen at any time when there is disagreement regardless of the % of any party (5% can fork ignoring the rest and you cant do anything about this).
Even if those 51% decide to fork and separate it is their choice. However an entity (may be a group) controlling 51% shouldn't be given total control over the network.

In the previous scenario when the stakeholders' vote was limited to max 33 delegates an entity with 51% will not be able to get all the delegate seats. Guaranteed representation at 33% wasn't a bad idea either.

That's why I think limiting the amount of delegates you can vote for was a good idea and pyre approval voting is not (although pyre approval voting is better than the previous system). EDIT: This is my opinion feel free to disagree and share your thoughts.

PS: Each sequential state is better , isn't this cool ?

[Agent86]

Well if you have 51% you will obviously get all the delegate seats unless there is a limit on the amount of delegates you can vote for.
I personally think the limit as a very good idea.

If you have one entity that has 51%, you have bigger problems and you must trust this entity to use the system anyway.  Limiting the votes doesn't change this at all. 51% could control the network no matter what, and ignore votes cast for any other delegates, this is the nature of POS the same way that 51% of hashing power controls bitcoin (if one entity controls 51% of the hash power you must trust that entity to use the system).

Getting rid of the limit is a good idea and makes it harder for bad actors with less than 51% to get their unpopular delegates elected.  If a bad actor gets 51% stake the network must be forked to remove them regardless.

[emski]

33% ensures a spot as delegate

After more thinking I have increased this requirement in the latest dry run... no one is ever assured a spot

So you can vote for 101 delegates ?

Yes

Well if you have 51% you will obviously get all the delegate seats unless there is a limit on the amount of delegates you can vote for.
I personally think the limit as a very good idea.

[muse-umum]

33% ensures a spot as delegate

After more thinking I have increased this requirement in the latest dry run... no one is ever assured a spot

So you can vote for 101 delegates ?

Yes

Why? How did you calculate this ?

[xeroc]

33% ensures a spot as delegate

After more thinking I have increased this requirement in the latest dry run... no one is ever assured a spot

wow ..

[bytemaster]

33% ensures a spot as delegate

After more thinking I have increased this requirement in the latest dry run... no one is ever assured a spot

So you can vote for 101 delegates ?

Yes

[emski]

33% ensures a spot as delegate

After more thinking I have increased this requirement in the latest dry run... no one is ever assured a spot

So you can vote for 101 delegates ?

[bytemaster]

33% ensures a spot as delegate

After more thinking I have increased this requirement in the latest dry run... no one is ever assured a spot

[xeroc]

33% ensures a spot as delegate

[muse-umum]

Can you please describe how we are going to kick the evil delegate out of the top 101 since we can't vote against ? 

Is it still a whack-a-mole game if the evil delegate owns a large amount of shares and can vote himself (another account) back ?

Hi heyD, I hope this explanation helps:
the "whack-a-mole" term comes from the idea of trying to vote down a delegate who then switches his support to another delegate he controls and then you have to switch your downvote etc.  This doesn't apply to approval voting because you don't need to actively downvote delegates.  In some sense you are by default already downvoting every delegate that you haven't actively decided to upvote.

Unlike in the previous system, the evil delegate can't vote himself in on his own because he needs much more support to get elected.  His stake is not enough to compete with delegates that have support from the whole community.  If he switches to a new delegate he is starting all over from scratch with no votes and no trust and it will take him a long time to get supporters.

People need to build trust from the community to get elected.  If they then reveal themselves to be evil (or more likely incompetent) the community will pull their support quickly in favor of better alternatives.  You get rid of bad delegates by simply keeping a bit of an eye on the delegates you voted for to make sure they performing well and if they don't, you remove your vote for them and vote for someone else instead.

Thanks, much clear now. So how much shares does the attacker have at least to own to make sure he won't be kicked out of the top 101 ? 33%

[xeroc]

thx ..

[liondani]

Upgraded to Approval Voting.
https://github.com/BitShares/bitshares_toolkit/wiki/AYNTK_Voting

Please proof read.

Update your site too on FAQ 
"This consensus is achieved by voting for, or against, a delegate and earn or loose the right to form blocks."

http://bitshares.xeroc.org/faq.shtml

[xeroc]

Upgraded to Approval Voting.
https://github.com/BitShares/bitshares_toolkit/wiki/AYNTK_Voting

Please proof read.

[santaclause102]

That's what I gathered (more logical is #20,21,22 to get 50/3 votes each but I understood it is not how it works)

I guess that would be equal to delegating your votes (old system without the possibility of down voting)

[tonyk]

You don't vote for anyone and thus by default 'do not approve' of anyone.

1)-Top 101 delagates with most casted votes 'for' ('for' being the only active choice) are in (for that round), correct?

2)- If you have transaction 'transfer  50 BTS' which is worth 50 votes:
      -if you vote for candidate #20 only, candidate #20 gets 50 votes
      -if you vote for candidate #20,#21,#22 -  candidate #20 gets 50 votes; candidate #21 gets 50 votes; candidate #21 gets 50 votes

That's what I gathered (more logical is #20,21,22 to get 50/3 votes each but I understood it is not how it works)