Author Topic: Approval voting -> issues with voting participation  (Read 5148 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline santaclause102

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2486
    • View Profile

Offline yoshiwatusi

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
hi.. how can i get others to vote for me to become a delegate.. been trying to search..:(

Offline santaclause102

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2486
    • View Profile
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.

« Last Edit: September 01, 2014, 05:08:53 pm by delulo »

Offline santaclause102

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2486
    • View Profile
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.

Offline Agent86

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 471
  • BTSX: agent86
    • View Profile
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.

Offline 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.

Offline santaclause102

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2486
    • View Profile
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?

Offline santaclause102

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2486
    • View Profile
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).

Offline toast

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4001
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: nikolai
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

Do not use this post as information for making any important decisions. The only agreements I ever make are informal and non-binding. Take the same precautions as when dealing with a compromised account, scammer, sockpuppet, etc.

Offline santaclause102

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2486
    • View Profile
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 ;)

Offline toast

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4001
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: nikolai
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

Do not use this post as information for making any important decisions. The only agreements I ever make are informal and non-binding. Take the same precautions as when dealing with a compromised account, scammer, sockpuppet, etc.

Offline santaclause102

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2486
    • View Profile
Quote
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.

Offline toast

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4001
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: nikolai
Quote
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.
Do not use this post as information for making any important decisions. The only agreements I ever make are informal and non-binding. Take the same precautions as when dealing with a compromised account, scammer, sockpuppet, etc.

Offline santaclause102

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2486
    • View Profile
Quote
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. 
« Last Edit: July 26, 2014, 05:43:37 pm by delulo »

Offline toast

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4001
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: nikolai
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.
Do not use this post as information for making any important decisions. The only agreements I ever make are informal and non-binding. Take the same precautions as when dealing with a compromised account, scammer, sockpuppet, etc.