Negative Votes Coming back in Next Dry Run

[gamey]

I will suggest something a little different:
1 Keep approval voting with no downvotes
2 Apply X% vote weight decrease after Y blocks. ( I suggest X to be approx 1%, Y ~101)

Using this a delegate need to have continuous support in order to stay in top 101.
Any vote will not matter once enough rotations have passed.
Those who use the system (making transaction) will dictate who will be delegate IN SHORT TERM.

Ofcourse one could just transfer stake between own wallets and routing votes through his own delegates so he is not paying taxes. (and this is one more reason for restrictions for delegates to burn at least some % of the transactions)

Wouldn't this just destroy security as the people who don't use their shares will have their vote diluted then a party that is a large share holder could grossly inflate their influence by making a transaction?  They could also automate the process.

I know NEM has something like Proof of Interest.  I should read more about it.

[liondani]

I will suggest something a little different:
1 Keep approval voting with no downvotes
2 Apply X% vote weight decrease after Y blocks. ( I suggest X to be approx 1%, Y ~101)

Using this a delegate need to have continuous support in order to stay in top 101.
Any vote will not matter once enough rotations have passed.
Those who use the system (making transaction) will dictate who will be delegate IN SHORT TERM.

Of course one could just transfer stake between own wallets and routing votes through his own delegates so he is not paying taxes. (and this is one more reason for restrictions for delegates to burn at least some % of the transactions)

interesting...

[sumantso]

It may be too late for this. But I was thinking that you could have this as a perpetual auction. And have it so becoming a delegate is only for a limited term.

That way it will be easy for positions to be filled at any point based on demand. And it takes care of the constant inflation when new delegates want to come in.

Let's say it's a quarterly thing (people in finance would appreciate that).

So every 3 months positions are auctioned. And people have the ability to look at stats from prior 3 months to decide who to vote for.

Also wanted to ask - if I wanted to be a super reliable delegate - is it possible to run the same client on multiple nodes with same user ID? that way if one of my machines goes down, I am still up and running and providing service. Or would that create unnecessary forks?

Sorry for the run on sentences and going all over the place, about to leave, and wanted to get all those in before I go.

You can run on multiple nodes, so long as you don't produce 2 blocks at once with the same key.

Any easy way to do that on Windows with the GUI? I have two machines (its crashing on one, btw), and would like to use one of them as backup.

[emski]

I will suggest something a little different:
1 Keep approval voting with no downvotes
2 Apply X% vote weight decrease after Y blocks. ( I suggest X to be approx 1%, Y ~101)

Using this a delegate need to have continuous support in order to stay in top 101.
Any vote will not matter once enough rotations have passed.
Those who use the system (making transaction) will dictate who will be delegate IN SHORT TERM.

Ofcourse one could just transfer stake between own wallets and routing votes through his own delegates so he is not paying taxes. (and this is one more reason for restrictions for delegates to burn at least some % of the transactions)

[liondani]

What about to let the aproval method as it is right now in general...
BUT have the oportunity to downvote ONLY active delegates (first 101)...
As soon they are not active (stand-by) you can not downvote them.

OR better make a hybrid aproval system !!!

Let the downvotes matures in time...
For example when someone get a downvote he should "keep" the downvote for x time (1 month?) (but recorded in his history for ever....)
Something like penalty. Only upvotes and penaltys. When you see after 3 years someone has 6 penaltys you will be more carefull with upvoting him for example

[alt]

super frustrated...  Down votes are not the answer.  There should be no down voting.  There is also no need for "random" voting.  All people need are network statistics and no random voting and people will happily remove support for under-performing delegates.  Down voting destroys the integrity of the election process.  You are thinking about "users" all wrong.  These are shares with shareholders.  Shareholders are not lazy.  Shareholders care.  Look how active this community is and try to help.  A new user with a tiny stake won't have an impact anyway.   Now if I want my votes to have a bigger impact I have to waste time voting down everyone else.  There also is no need for automated voting, it is not a good thing.

How about that?
you can't vote both "Up" and "Down" with the same shares.
When block chain security state is green, the "Up" vote  is active
otherwise, the "Down" vote is active.

If you are a delegate, you only need to vote yourself,if you vote against someone, you will lose your own vote.
for others not as delegate, normally they choose delegate they believe,
but when things go to bad, they can get rid of the bad delegate as soon as possible.

[gamey]

  Now if I want my votes to have a bigger impact I have to waste time voting down everyone else.  There also is no need for automated voting, it is not a good thing.

My understanding was previously you had 1 vote.  The above implies something like approval/disapproval voting.  Where every candidate gets a yay/nay. 

I'm not sure I understand your position or what you are advocating for.  Originally a share could only vote for 1 delegate at a time up/down.  Now it seems he is keeping ability to vote for multiple delegates but can vote for or against.  Either way is wrong.  Pure approval voting with only up votes and no random votes or automated voting is perfect (just provide network statistics for warnings/recommendations).

I was neutral about it until I heard your explanation about the problems with the original system.  That being an opportunity cost to downvote when delegates give kickbacks.  I'm back to being neutral until I understand your issues with the new voting system.

Without automated voting, how will a bad delegate be removed quick enough from the system ?  You're also thinking of this in terms of just one chain.  There will be multiple chains, all which require people to be involved.  Automated voting needs to be implemented, but should always be optional.

Automated voting is also something people can implement in new wallets , regardless of what is decided on the official release.

[Agent86]

  Now if I want my votes to have a bigger impact I have to waste time voting down everyone else.  There also is no need for automated voting, it is not a good thing.

My understanding was previously you had 1 vote.  The above implies something like approval/disapproval voting.  Where every candidate gets a yay/nay. 

I'm not sure I understand your position or what you are advocating for.  Originally a share could only vote for 1 delegate at a time up/down.  Now it seems he is keeping ability to vote for multiple delegates but can vote for or against.  Either way is wrong.  Pure approval voting with only up votes and no random votes or automated voting is perfect (just provide network statistics for warnings/recommendations).

[gamey]

  Now if I want my votes to have a bigger impact I have to waste time voting down everyone else.  There also is no need for automated voting, it is not a good thing.

My understanding was previously you had 1 vote.  The above implies something like approval/disapproval voting.  Where every candidate gets a yay/nay. 

?

Delegates can still see what addresses are voting for them.  Do you think something has changed?

No, I just never knew completely how it works.  I tried participating last dry run but after several hours of not hearing back on my request for XTS I moved on to my other interests in Bitshares. 

Honestly, they need to create a real simple faucet for these dry runs so people can just get involved without having to bother devs etc.

[Agent86]

Approval voting made a lot more sense when there was talk of delegates being able to give back to those who vote for them.  If delegates can see who voted for them and can utilize kickbacks then that is when approval voting would become useful.

Delegates can still see what addresses are voting for them.  Do you think something has changed?

[gamey]

Approval voting made a lot more sense when there was talk of delegates being able to give back to those who vote for them.  If delegates can see who voted for them and can utilize kickbacks then that is when approval voting would become useful. 

[clout]

 

super frustrated...  Down votes are not the answer.  There should be no down voting.  There is also no need for "random" voting.  All people need are network statistics and no random voting and people will happily remove support for under-performing delegates.  Down voting destroys the integrity of the election process.  You are thinking about "users" all wrong.  These are shares with shareholders.  Shareholders are not lazy.  Shareholders care.  Look how active this community is and try to help.  A new user with a tiny stake won't have an impact anyway.   Now if I want my votes to have a bigger impact I have to waste time voting down everyone else.  There also is no need for automated voting, it is not a good thing.

 

[Agent86]

super frustrated...  Down votes are not the answer.  There should be no down voting.  There is also no need for "random" voting.  All people need are network statistics and no random voting and people will happily remove support for under-performing delegates.  Down voting destroys the integrity of the election process.  You are thinking about "users" all wrong.  These are shares with shareholders.  Shareholders are not lazy.  Shareholders care.  Look how active this community is and try to help.  A new user with a tiny stake won't have an impact anyway.   Now if I want my votes to have a bigger impact I have to waste time voting down everyone else.  There also is no need for automated voting, it is not a good thing.

[bytemaster]

It may be too late for this. But I was thinking that you could have this as a perpetual auction. And have it so becoming a delegate is only for a limited term.

That way it will be easy for positions to be filled at any point based on demand. And it takes care of the constant inflation when new delegates want to come in.

Let's say it's a quarterly thing (people in finance would appreciate that).

So every 3 months positions are auctioned. And people have the ability to look at stats from prior 3 months to decide who to vote for.

Also wanted to ask - if I wanted to be a super reliable delegate - is it possible to run the same client on multiple nodes with same user ID? that way if one of my machines goes down, I am still up and running and providing service. Or would that create unnecessary forks?

Sorry for the run on sentences and going all over the place, about to leave, and wanted to get all those in before I go.

You can run on multiple nodes, so long as you don't produce 2 blocks at once with the same key.

[bytemaster]

Down votes should only be used in the short term because of the "wack-a-mole" problem.... but with approval voting it becomes very difficult to get the required votes to be in the top 101 in the first place and the long term solution is for people to find 101 delegates they can actively support.