Author Topic: RDPOS - Recommended Delegated Proof of Stake  (Read 8734 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline bitmeat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1116
    • View Profile
Re: RDPOS - Recommended Delegated Proof of Stake
« Reply #45 on: July 24, 2014, 02:04:13 pm »
Basically we got two unintended, inevitable consequences of DPOS:

1. People can delegate the job of voting to a slate.
2. Delegates can pay the individuals who vote for them.

We are now mitigating the risks these schemes pose.

Like Delulu I am most concerned about the Cynical Economy Threat: People will vote for delegates and slates that pay the most for individual votes (not via burn that appreciates everyone, but directly).

This is a case where negative voting "might" help. However I am still against it, since then people would be paying for negative votes.

That said - is it really possible to track who is voting for you?

Offline Empirical1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 884
    • View Profile
Re: RDPOS - Recommended Delegated Proof of Stake
« Reply #46 on: July 24, 2014, 03:27:21 pm »
Like Delulu I am most concerned about the Cynical Economy Threat: People will vote for delegates and slates that pay the most for individual votes (not via burn that appreciates everyone, but directly).

I'm not too concerned about that. I know miners vote for Ghash.io for example, even to the point it threatens Bitcoin, but now that the people with the power are the shareholders, I don't think we'll see the same results.

Offline Agent86

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 471
  • BTSX: agent86
    • View Profile
Re: RDPOS - Recommended Delegated Proof of Stake
« Reply #47 on: July 24, 2014, 03:42:20 pm »
Basically we got two unintended, inevitable consequences of DPOS:

1. People can delegate the job of voting to a slate.
2. Delegates can pay the individuals who vote for them.

We are now mitigating the risks these schemes pose.

Like Delulu I am most concerned about the Cynical Economy Threat: People will vote for delegates and slates that pay the most for individual votes (not via burn that appreciates everyone, but directly).
Clains, both of these "inevitable" consequences have already been addressed by using approval voting.
Approval voting removes the incentive for vote buying and it won't happen or be rewarded.
There is also no incentive for "political party slates"
Quote
We are complicating things because we are overpaying delegates.  There is no reason to give fees for things like registering an asset to the delegate that processed that block.  Delegates should be paid a fair amount for the service provided.

What does it have to do with the delegate pay?
Delegate pay is relevant because if it is excessive then voters have to balance voting for delegates they trust to perform the job of delegate (easy to do) vs. keeping track of how all the delegates spend money (hard to do)

Bytemaster, I honestly don't understand how one minute you're acting like people don't have time to evaluate delegates for the simple task of writing blocks, and the next minute you want to give delegates the additional power of spending all the profit.  If voters are lazy, don't force them scrutinize delegate spending!! KEEP IT SIMPLE.  Don't overcharge users for delegate profit!!  Our system is truly way cheaper than Bitcoin.  We want to encourage use of the system with low fees.   We could compete in 3rd world and micropayment applications.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, reinvestment through control of dilution and profit spending requires a separate class called "workers" where the "real money" goes and those people need 50%+ support.  A worker could even give prizes to the delegates with best uptime for the month.

Offline bytemaster

Re: RDPOS - Recommended Delegated Proof of Stake
« Reply #48 on: July 24, 2014, 03:47:35 pm »
I agree with you on the two classes with different thresholds of approval.   

The only tweak I would have is that you require 50% of "active shares" vs 50% of all shares.    Active means any share that is voting for someone.  Inactive are shares that don't vote for anyone.
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.

Offline Agent86

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 471
  • BTSX: agent86
    • View Profile
Re: RDPOS - Recommended Delegated Proof of Stake
« Reply #49 on: July 24, 2014, 03:58:03 pm »
I agree with you on the two classes with different thresholds of approval.   

The only tweak I would have is that you require 50% of "active shares" vs 50% of all shares.    Active means any share that is voting for someone.  Inactive are shares that don't vote for anyone.
I agree with you except for the definition of "active" shares.  Shares that have not moved in over 1 year (paid inactivity fee) are inactive and should be removed from all voting algorithms.  People who choose to abstain are voluntarily inactive.  Not voting for someone should not automatically disqualify your shares from the voting algorithm. The act of not voting is the way that one opposes all current candidates.

Offline Empirical1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 884
    • View Profile
Re: RDPOS - Recommended Delegated Proof of Stake
« Reply #50 on: July 24, 2014, 04:02:14 pm »
Quote
1) Every delegate may optionally specify a slate ID as part of their public data.  This slate ID identifies up to 101 delegates supported by that delegate.
2) Every user can select one or more delegates to approve of
3) The wallet will automatically combine the public slates of the delegates that user approves of to produce their votes.

So it's possible to vote for a delegate you like but choose to completely ignore their slate?


Offline Empirical1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 884
    • View Profile
Re: RDPOS - Recommended Delegated Proof of Stake
« Reply #51 on: July 24, 2014, 04:06:04 pm »
Just an idea that delegates could be given more icons to make the selection process easier.

I multi-table online poker, so have to make a lot of quick decisions which I wouldn't be able to do just by looking at people's names. So the poker software takes the players statistics and colour codes them and gives them a few icons. With this system just looking at a few icons you can get a very accurate picture of a player and I imagine the same is true of a delegate. (If you want you can click through and see in more detail.)

So a delegate would choose/system a main icon for them such as a marketing icon, development icon, burning for shareholders icon, pay for votes icon, Charity icon, all rounder icon etc. (Depending where they directed their funds) 

Maybe an icon if they have verification of their identity. A video/web presentation icon.  Maybe an icon if they are currently endorsed by developers etc.  It looks like there are already performance icons which is good etc.




Offline bytemaster

Re: RDPOS - Recommended Delegated Proof of Stake
« Reply #52 on: July 24, 2014, 04:45:18 pm »
Just an idea that delegates could be given more icons to make the selection process easier.

I multi-table online poker, so have to make a lot of quick decisions which I wouldn't be able to do just by looking at people's names. So the poker software takes the players statistics and colour codes them and gives them a few icons. With this system just looking at a few icons you can get a very accurate picture of a player and I imagine the same is true of a delegate. (If you want you can click through and see in more detail.)

So a delegate would choose/system a main icon for them such as a marketing icon, development icon, burning for shareholders icon, pay for votes icon, Charity icon, all rounder icon etc. (Depending where they directed their funds) 

Maybe an icon if they have verification of their identity. A video/web presentation icon.  Maybe an icon if they are currently endorsed by developers etc.  It looks like there are already performance icons which is good etc.

That is very close to many of the ideas we have been thinking.   
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.

Offline CLains

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2610
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: clains
Re: RDPOS - Recommended Delegated Proof of Stake
« Reply #53 on: July 24, 2014, 05:03:00 pm »
Cynical Economy Threat: People will vote for delegates and slates that pay the most for individual votes (not via burn that appreciates everyone, but directly).
I'm not too concerned about that. I know miners vote for Ghash.io for example, even to the point it threatens Bitcoin, but now that the people with the power are the shareholders, I don't think we'll see the same results.
Approval voting removes the incentive for vote buying and it won't happen or be rewarded.

Anyone want to walk me through this? I don't understand it, le why

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile
Re: RDPOS - Recommended Delegated Proof of Stake
« Reply #54 on: July 24, 2014, 05:25:59 pm »

Dont think that the electoral college is a good analogy. The analogy I thought of is shareholders = shareholders, slate selectors = directors, delegates = executives. Differences: Shareholders do not directly select executives which is possible with RDPOS. With RDPS it is not a yes or no decision for the delegates/executives. With RDPOS there are many slates you can select or you dont have to select a slate at all and vote for 101 delegates (only at 101 approved delegates you vote has the full effect) of your own choice or just a few you know personally. Then all the different votes are proportionally weighted as opposed to the electoral college where a relative majority approves a canditate. The executives/directors analogy is also not perfect as shareholders here only vote with yes or no on one proposed slate of directors and dont vote at all for the executives.
With RDPOS there is also no http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlocking_directorate

What ways to game the system could you come up with?
I agree electoral college isn't a good analogy, it wasn't meant to be, but it is something where a middle layer of voting screws up things in a really profound way.  The electoral college is useless and far from what it was intended to do.  It effectively disenfranchises whole states.  There is no way the founding fathers saw it coming.  I'd really need to think about the details etc and how it relates to say whether it is more accurate as an analogy.

By gaming the system, I mean horse-trading and backroom deals.  Things that are not intended by the original system, but will come into play.  The system meaning not just underlying voting system, but the whole system of people involved.  The psychology, things said, voter, etc.


Quote from: delulo
+5% absolutely realistic. People are minimizing effort and maximizing benefit /effect. Maximizing their positive influence on the system as they are interested in it's success as they are shareholders. And minimizing effort by trusting others, delegating effort, appreciating specialization.
It does not follow for me that we are maximizing positive influence.  You could just as well be maximizing negative influence, or neutral influence at the cost of lost positive influence.

Quote
I don't think "political parties" are at all inevitable with pure approval voting; I don't see the incentives for them.

Voting for delegates should be easy because delegates have a VERY simple and verifiable job.  It's not rocket science; vote for a bunch of people who come across as trustworthy and if you pick a bad one it's no big deal as it will soon be apparent.

+5% - I think we may have political parties, but they'll be smaller groups and thus less powerful.  A slate of 101 delegates gives a lot of power to just imbed randomly on various websites.


I think we are far better waiting for more organic solutions to form around this.  Websites dedicated to these things, where they can imbed the URL for each individual.  In fact it seems plausible you could create a website that votes for slates without any of this RDPOS.  If there is a need (and there is), the market will find it.  What you don't need is the ability for people to embed slates all over the places and have teams of people pushing them on every relevant website.  Spamming forums, etc.  That is what you are enabling more than incentivizing voting.

We're also giving people something to complain about.   Political parties, centralization, yadda yadda.  It is just not a good marketing move.

I don't want to be so negative, but for some reason this idea really really bugs me.  I will try my best to read all the responses and see if I can come up with a better way.  I realize that a lot of this has to be balanced with technical requirements which I don't fully understand, but shrug.. Maybe we can figure something out.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2014, 05:30:47 pm by gamey »
I speak for myself and only myself.

Offline Empirical1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 884
    • View Profile
Re: RDPOS - Recommended Delegated Proof of Stake
« Reply #55 on: July 24, 2014, 05:45:55 pm »
Cynical Economy Threat: People will vote for delegates and slates that pay the most for individual votes (not via burn that appreciates everyone, but directly).
I'm not too concerned about that. I know miners vote for Ghash.io for example, even to the point it threatens Bitcoin, but now that the people with the power are the shareholders, I don't think we'll see the same results.

Anyone want to walk me through this? I don't understand it, le why

Miners are more like employees & shareholders are owners.

You can tempt employees with better incentives & wages and they will have a limited concern with how it effects the underlying company. Whereas you'd have to provide really amazing incentives to tempt shareholders to accept deals that threaten their larger underlying investment, so much so that it I imagine in theory, it should essentially work out the same cost for an attacker as just buying the shares. 

Also with DPOS there's no advantage to big pools or centralisation of delegates, with mining it provides more consistency (finding blocks more frequently) so pools get get bigger without even needing to offer amazing incentives etc.
Edit: Oops centralisation of delegates would make the system cheaper to run so there is an advantage.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2014, 06:57:53 pm by Empirical1 »

Offline santaclause102

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2486
    • View Profile
Re: RDPOS - Recommended Delegated Proof of Stake
« Reply #56 on: July 24, 2014, 07:08:29 pm »
Delegate pay is relevant because if it is excessive then voters have to balance voting for delegates they trust to perform the job of delegate (easy to do) vs. keeping track of how all the delegates spend money (hard to do)
That is a good argument. But a seperate issue from the OP suggestion because the due diligence work didn't (overall) become (much) less. 

Apart from the RDPOS vs DPOS question:
Pro seperating workers and delegates: It is easier for people to make a decision because they dont have to weigh the two different qualities.
Contra seperation: Shareholders then have to vote on two issues. 

Agent, have a look at https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=5868.msg82124#msg82124
+
Quote
The problem is that unless you approve 101 delegates you have not used your full voting power. The shareholder has to decide whether it is better to vote only for those he knows are good delegates or whether he should vote for a slate that has been suggested by a trusted delegate. The latter might make sense because a bad player can only be voted out effectively if everyone uses his full voting power.

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile
Re: RDPOS - Recommended Delegated Proof of Stake
« Reply #57 on: July 24, 2014, 07:23:51 pm »

Another problem that I don't think anyone has brought up, is you can have infinite slates that are roughly equivalent.  In fact, if I was clever and wanted to win, I'd make up 10 different slates with different marketing angles.  The union of those slates would be all me all day.

There is an example of gaming in its purest form.  Now how do we do enough due diligence to make sure such a thing doesn't happen?

There are assumptions in here that this is similar to meatspace situations where there is a cost to creating a slate has a cost.
I speak for myself and only myself.

Offline bytemaster

Re: RDPOS - Recommended Delegated Proof of Stake
« Reply #58 on: July 24, 2014, 07:27:04 pm »

Another problem that I don't think anyone has brought up, is you can have infinite slates that are roughly equivalent.  In fact, if I was clever and wanted to win, I'd make up 10 different slates with different marketing angles.  The union of those slates would be all me all day.

There is an example of gaming in its purest form.  Now how do we do enough due diligence to make sure such a thing doesn't happen?

There are assumptions in here that this is similar to meatspace situations where there is a cost to creating a slate has a cost.

One slate per account... user interface doesn't change much from what we have today.  You follow people not slates.  You would have to convince people to use the recommendations of all your sock puppets.   In reality what would happen is people would simply follow their friends and well known people in the industry. 
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.

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile
Re: RDPOS - Recommended Delegated Proof of Stake
« Reply #59 on: July 24, 2014, 09:44:55 pm »

Another problem that I don't think anyone has brought up, is you can have infinite slates that are roughly equivalent.  In fact, if I was clever and wanted to win, I'd make up 10 different slates with different marketing angles.  The union of those slates would be all me all day.

There is an example of gaming in its purest form.  Now how do we do enough due diligence to make sure such a thing doesn't happen?

There are assumptions in here that this is similar to meatspace situations where there is a cost to creating a slate has a cost.

One slate per account... user interface doesn't change much from what we have today.  You follow people not slates.  You would have to convince people to use the recommendations of all your sock puppets.   In reality what would happen is people would simply follow their friends and well known people in the industry.

I didn't read the OP close enough, so now I am understanding it a bit better...

I agree about people typically following friends or people in the industry, but you can still game things and create sock puppet type delegates and completely detach your real motivations.  That is the nature of the crypto world.  Having combinations of slates available and encouraged is absolutely key.

By making combination of slates readily accessible you dilute the power of individual slates enough to decentralize. There will be a lot of negativity involved with this system and things we do not wish to see or be involved with. 

The main problem is not simply how do you get people to vote, but how do you get them to toggle on 101 people in a meaningful manner.  Sigh, I guess  this is probably the best way to enforce network security even if I hate all the negative crap that seems inevitable.  good job.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2014, 09:47:14 pm by gamey »
I speak for myself and only myself.