Approval voting -> issues with voting participation

[santaclause102]

hi.. how can i get others to vote for me to become a delegate.. been trying to search..

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=8148.msg106718#msg106718

[yoshiwatusi]

hi.. how can i get others to vote for me to become a delegate.. been trying to search..

[santaclause102]

I think I see now that approval voting has a different dynamic even if all shareholders voted for many delegates of the same person that is operating many delegates (delegate-xeroc-1, delegate-xeroc-2, delegate-xeroc-3 are all controlled by xeroc). 

Example:
One shareholder (called "X") has 10% of the stake and it is a bad shareholder. The rest is good stake.

In approval voting: X puts up 52 delegates and votes for them with his 10 %. Now if the other 90 % of the stake vote for 5 other people / delegate operators by voting for the 20 delegates of each of the 5 trusted individuals. Result: The bad actor is definitely out.
But if everyone in the 90% group only voted for one delegate of the 5 trusted people then X has all his 52 delegates in the top 101.

In delegation voting: X puts up 1 delegate and votes for him with his 10%. X's delegate is in with 10%. If pool sizes would be limited to say 1% then X would just put up 10 delegates he votes in and nothing changed. I left out the possibility for negatives votes but I guess that wouldn't have changed anything anyway: Everyone negative votes against X. But X would also negative vote against everyone else which would make it equal again. Suggestion: Negative votes could be limited to 5 negative votes which would not allow the bad actor to negative vote against everyone.

Conclusion: Approval voting makes the result more extreme, all depending on whether shareholders get it that they should vote with their 101 votes or not. A bad actor can be kicked out best with approval voting but might also get full control over the network if shareholders only vote for a few delegates (as opposed to delegates 1-x of the individuals they trust).

Solutions:
- RDPOS is a suggestion that would max out the voting capacity of everyone to 101 votes.
- Quasi-Delegation voting. I though of the following but that would equal delegation voting, as I see it: Not limit one delegate's "seats" to 1 in 101 seats and base his seats on the amount of approvals he got. 
- Real delegation voting.

[santaclause102]

However when you have a fixed number of delegates that are going to get in no matter what and there are less than that number of trusted people to perform the job, it is better if they run multiple delegates rather than let those open positions be filled up by untrusted scragglers with no real support.  I brought this up on the mumble.

Exactly. The rational/healthy voting behavior you described to vote for several delegates of the same person (I called those real world people "delegate operators") is what I assumed in the OP.

[Agent86]

I think you guys are talking past each other a little.  In the most pure form of approval voting you could have an unbounded number of votes and the number of delegates wouldn't be fixed.  i.e.  all delegates over a threshold (such as 50%) are in and everyone else is out.  In that case the number of votes you cast really has no impact on how heavily "weighted" your positions is.

However when you have a fixed number of delegates that are going to get in no matter what and there are less than that number of trusted people to perform the job, it is better if they run multiple delegates rather than let those open positions be filled up by untrusted scragglers with no real support.  I brought this up on the mumble.

[Pheonike]

We need to define the the delegate terms better. Since a Delegate can have sub delegates and each of those sub-delegates can have different objectives depending on how they have been defined the purpose, it can be confusing to new users.

[santaclause102]

Your vote slate is a union of the delegate operators' vote slates. It doesn't change anything in the blockchain, it is strictly wallet-side and works as before.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

I get that my slate is the selection of delegates I made. What is the delegate-operator's vote slate?

[santaclause102]

You can't vote more than once for the same person! It is 0 or 1 votes for each delegate independent of your total vote

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

yes you can. One person can have multiply delegates (= my assumption. and like I said I think it must be so in order to allow for high effective participation in voting).

[toast]

Your vote slate is a union of the delegate operators' vote slates. It doesn't change anything in the blockchain, it is strictly wallet-side and works as before.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[santaclause102]

Is this true?  In order for your votes to count, you have to vote for 101 delegates?

Not for your votes to count but for your votes to have the full effect. The current system has http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting + the possibility for delegate operators to have as many delegates as they want. My proposition is that this results in disguised delegation voting again.

GaltReport post is a good example that it is not intuitive that one has to vote 101 delegates to have the maximum effect of his votes.

True, I had no idea.  What is the effect of voting for 5 vs 101?

I you only vote for 5 delegates (as opposed to for 5 delegate operators with many delegates each) you have about 1/20 of the influence as if you voted for 101 delegates. One way to vote for 101 delegates is to for for 20 delegates of each of your 5 delegate operators you like.
There might still be someone to proof me wrong on this

[toast]

You can't vote more than once for the same person! It is 0 or 1 votes for each delegate independent of your total vote

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[santaclause102]

If I only like 30, it is better for me to vote for 30, not 30 + 71 random low-vote people.

It would be even better if you voted for 3 delegates of all the 30 delegate operators you like.

No, it doesn't have more weight. Try out some scenarios, make some example rankings. You should always vote for people you like and not vote for people you don't like.

Like I said I don't imply any scenario where I vote for people I dont like. There are x people I like -> 100/x = y. Then I vote y times for those I like because they have at least y delegates. That they have y delegates is my assumption and it is necessary due to limited due diligence capacities of shareholders.

[toast]

If I only like 30, it is better for me to vote for 30, not 30 + 71 random low-vote people.

It would be even better if you voted for 3 delegates of all the 30 delegate operators you like.

No, it doesn't have more weight. Try out some scenarios, make some example rankings. You should always vote for people you like and not vote for people you don't like.

[santaclause102]

If I only like 30, it is better for me to vote for 30, not 30 + 71 random low-vote people.

It would be even better if you voted for 3 delegates of all the 30 delegate operators you like. Then your vote has more weight. My assumption was that all delegate operators have many delegates which would be "a necessity if we want shareholders to max out their effective votes (vote for 101 delegates) under the condition that the vast majority of shareholders only knows a few delegate operators to be trustworthy (limited time to do due diligence). "

Someone else's stake that is the same as mine that only votes for 30 and not for 3*30 would have 1/3 voting power compared to me. 

[toast]

No, you do *not* need to have 101 votes for your votes to have "full effect". This is a misconception I had about approval voting as well where it felt like the vote was being "split".

If I only like 30, it is better for me to vote for 30, not 30 + 71 random low-vote people.


Think of delegate voting as 10,000 independent elections.

[GaltReport]

Is this true?  In order for your votes to count, you have to vote for 101 delegates?

Not for your votes to count but for your votes to have the full effect. The current system has http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting + the possibility for delegate operators to have as many delegates as they want. My proposition is that this results in disguised delegation voting again.

GaltReport post is a good example that it is not intuitive that one has to vote 101 delegates to have the maximum effect of his votes.

True, I had no idea.  What is the effect of voting for 5 vs 101?

[santaclause102]

What if delegates have to register to a "type" or "political party"... And then anyone who doesn't want to vote for 101 delegates can choose to vote for a "type" or "politcial party," however this would not be a vote for a set slate, instead a vote for a political party is a vote for any delegates randomly selected from that political party

Edit: the key difference in this proposal is the randomly selected aspect of the slate

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hmmm that would be a variation to RDPOS. I think it would be best discussed in the RDPOS thread  

[santaclause102]

Is this true?  In order for your votes to count, you have to vote for 101 delegates?

..not for your votes to count but for your votes to have the full effect. Currently Bitshares X has http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting + the possibility for delegate operators to have as many delegates as they want. My proposition is that this results in disguised delegation voting again.

GaltReport post is a good example that it is not intuitive that one has to vote 101 delegates to have the maximum effect of his votes.

[bitbro]

What if delegates have to register to a "type" or "political party"... And then anyone who doesn't want to vote for 101 delegates can choose to vote for a "type" or "politcial party," however this would not be a vote for a set slate, instead a vote for a political party is a vote for any delegates randomly selected from that political party

Edit: the key difference in this proposal is the randomly selected aspect of the slate

Edit: example: if I want 50 of my votes going to the lowest bidding delegates then I choose the Low Pay Party for 50 votes.  50 random Low Pay Delegates then get those votes. 

I also want 51 Above Low Pay Marketing Delegates to get votes.  I vote for that party and 51 randomly selected Above Low Pay Marketing Delegates get a vote

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GaltReport]

With the possibility for delegate-operators to have as many delegates as they want don't we have delegation voting (= your voting power is distributed among all the delegates you vote for) and not real approval voting effectively?

For example (with approval voting): I want to have the full effect of my voting stake, so I have to vote for 101 delegates. If I only know and trust 5 delegates then I would have to vote for 25 delegates of each of the 5 delegate operators.
This would be the same as distributing your vote among 5 delegates if we had delegation voting.

On the other side approval voting gives the shareholder, that is not educated that his vote only has the full effect when he votes for 101 delegates, the impression that he is supposed to vote only for a few delegates. He doesn't see a reasons to vote for 20 delegates (as he doesn't know the system/ approval voting) and might think voting for 25 delegates might be a bit too much power for one delegate. The result is low effective participation in voting even if all shareholders voted but just for a hand full of delegates.

So effectively (if you know how the voting system works) approval voting and delegation voting is the same.

If people don't understand the voting system fully then we have the following contra points for the two systems:
Approval voting: Low effective participation
Delegation voting as opposed to wrong assumptions about approval voting: Having to play whack-a-mole with bad stake; bad stake can cause trouble. 

In reality both voting systems are the same if delegate operators can set up as many delegates as they want.

An attacker probably understands the voting system better than the average shareholder, so we give him an advantage with approval voting. 

This was a quick though I had after the mumble session. There might be a flaw in there but up to now I couldn't think of one.

Is this true?  In order for your votes to count, you have to vote for 101 delegates?

[santaclause102]

I would also think it is much different but not if there are many delegates for each delegate operator which would be a necessity if we want shareholders to max out their effective votes (vote for 101 delegates) under the condition that the vast majority of shareholders only knows a few delegate operators to be trustworthy (limited time to do due diligence).
Can you point me to a post that shows that approval voting is really different from delegation voting under the above circumstances?

And RDPOS shouldn't contradict approval voting. You could do RDPOS + approval voting (I guess that was your suggestion) as well as RDOPS + delegation voting.

[bytemaster]

That was my original thinking too, but it is really quite different.   With RDPOS it makes it much better with Approval voting.

[santaclause102]

Title was: Approval voting = delegation voting. Turned out to be not the case...
I changed the title because https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=6249.msg83622#msg83622
--------------

With the possibility for delegate-operators to have as many delegates as they want don't we have delegation voting (= your voting power is distributed among all the delegates you vote for) and not real approval voting effectively?

For example (with approval voting): I want to have the full effect of my voting stake, so I have to vote for 101 delegates. If I only know and trust 5 delegates then I would have to vote for 25 delegates of each of the 5 delegate operators.
This would be the same as distributing your vote among 5 delegates if we had delegation voting.

On the other side approval voting gives the shareholder, that is not educated that his vote only has the full effect when he votes for 101 delegates, the impression that he is supposed to vote only for a few delegates. He doesn't see a reasons to vote for 20 delegates (as he doesn't know the system/ approval voting) and might think voting for 25 delegates might be a bit too much power for one delegate. The result is low effective participation in voting even if all shareholders voted but just for a hand full of delegates.

So effectively (if you know how the voting system works) approval voting and delegation voting is the same.

If people don't understand the voting system fully then we have the following contra points for the two systems:
Approval voting: Low effective participation
Delegation voting as opposed to wrong assumptions about approval voting: Having to play whack-a-mole with bad stake; bad stake can cause trouble. 

In reality both voting systems are the same if delegate operators can set up as many delegates as they want.

An attacker probably understands the voting system better than the average shareholder, so we give him an advantage with approval voting. 

This was a quick though I had after the mumble session. There might be a flaw in there but up to now I couldn't think of one.