Author Topic: Negative Votes Coming back in Next Dry Run  (Read 12602 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline bitmeat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1116
    • View Profile
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.


Offline bytemaster

After doing much thinking and learning from experience with recent dry runs I have concluded that we need to have negative votes. 

A negative vote is morally equivalent to a vote of approval for "everyone but X" like a positive vote is the moral equivalent as a vote of disapproval for everyone but Y. 

In a world where the squeaky wheal gets the grease, it is far more likely that the average user will know more about who they are against than who they are for.  When there is a bad actor it is far more difficult to get people to up-vote 101 other candidates than down vote the guy causing the problem.  For automated voting it is also far easier to down vote delegates that are not producing blocks than to decide who to up vote.

The average user is lazy and unlikely to evaluate 101 different individuals.  We must factor in this laziness in our designs.

Lastly in a world with 1000 candidates, it takes a lot of work to concentrate the approval consensus.   Suppose Bad Actor has 25% approval, everyone else has to find someone they can agree to give 26% approval to bump the Bad Actor.... there are 2 solid candidates and they each split the vote 13% / 13% and thus neither is able to bump the Bad Actor.    Everyone can agree the Bad Actor should go, so they simply vote against him.   

Negative voting is effectively an easy way to compress a "vote for all, but 1" which in a way helps simulate the ability to approve more than 101 delegates.

For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.