Author Topic: Approval Voting vs Delegation  (Read 15451 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline emski

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1282
    • View Profile
    • http://lnkd.in/nPbhxG
Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
« Reply #90 on: July 02, 2014, 02:56:29 pm »
The only way for 51% to monopolize the delegates is if they all vote for the exact same slate of 101 delegates without deviation.  Would you invest in a network where 51% of stake miraculously was in complete agreement on all 101 of the delegates they liked and everyone else opposed these same delegates?  Would that be a red flag to you to take your money to a different chain?

It will not be that easy to tell if these 51% act in complete agreement.
There is no need for the remaining 49% to oppose these delegates. The 49%'s opinion doesn't matter in this case.
The ability for a group of people collectively owning 51% stake to control the network is a red flag for me.

You say "no group should control all 101 delegates unless that group owns ~100% stake".  Just a few posts ago you were saying it should require closer to a 10-30% coordinated minority to guarantee representation.
Do you see contradiction here?

Offline Agent86

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 471
  • BTSX: agent86
    • View Profile
Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
« Reply #91 on: July 02, 2014, 03:01:06 pm »
It will not be that easy to tell if these 51% act in complete agreement.
Yes it will; the voting record is public.

You say "no group should control all 101 delegates unless that group owns ~100% stake".  Just a few posts ago you were saying it should require closer to a 10-30% coordinated minority to guarantee representation.
Do you see contradiction here?
Yes, these 2 statements you have made are completely contradictory.

Offline emski

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1282
    • View Profile
    • http://lnkd.in/nPbhxG
Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
« Reply #92 on: July 02, 2014, 03:11:38 pm »
It will not be that easy to tell if these 51% act in complete agreement.
Yes it will; the voting record is public.

You say "no group should control all 101 delegates unless that group owns ~100% stake".  Just a few posts ago you were saying it should require closer to a 10-30% coordinated minority to guarantee representation.
Do you see contradiction here?
Yes, these 2 statements you have made are completely contradictory.

Voting records are public but the agreements are not.

Could you explain how exactly these statements contradict each other ?

Offline Agent86

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 471
  • BTSX: agent86
    • View Profile
Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
« Reply #93 on: July 02, 2014, 03:19:25 pm »
It will not be that easy to tell if these 51% act in complete agreement.
Yes it will; the voting record is public.

You say "no group should control all 101 delegates unless that group owns ~100% stake".  Just a few posts ago you were saying it should require closer to a 10-30% coordinated minority to guarantee representation.
Do you see contradiction here?
Yes, these 2 statements you have made are completely contradictory.

Voting records are public but the agreements are not.

Could you explain how exactly these statements contradict each other ?
The agreements are also public.  You know specifically which stake is voting for which delegates (this is additional info above knowing the total votes for each delegate.)  If 2 delegates both have 50% support you can tell whether it's the same shareholders voting for both these delegates or if it is different shareholders voting for each delegate.

The statements contradict each other because if it takes a coordinated 30% to guarantee representation then by simple logic a 71% majority can control 100% of delegates.

Offline emski

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1282
    • View Profile
    • http://lnkd.in/nPbhxG
Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
« Reply #94 on: July 03, 2014, 11:32:17 am »
Well if you have 51% you will obviously get all the delegate seats unless there is a limit on the amount of delegates you can vote for.
I personally think the limit as a very good idea.
If you have one entity that has 51%, you have bigger problems and you must trust this entity to use the system anyway.  Limiting the votes doesn't change this at all. 51% could control the network no matter what, and ignore votes cast for any other delegates, this is the nature of POS the same way that 51% of hashing power controls bitcoin (if one entity controls 51% of the hash power you must trust that entity to use the system).

Getting rid of the limit is a good idea and makes it harder for bad actors with less than 51% to get their unpopular delegates elected.  If a bad actor gets 51% stake the network must be forked to remove them regardless.

The fork can happen at any time when there is disagreement regardless of the % of any party (5% can fork ignoring the rest and you cant do anything about this).
Even if those 51% decide to fork and separate it is their choice. However an entity (may be a group) controlling 51% shouldn't be given total control over the network.

In the previous scenario when the stakeholders' vote was limited to max 33 delegates an entity with 51% will not be able to get all the delegate seats. Guaranteed representation at 33% wasn't a bad idea either.

That's why I think limiting the amount of delegates you can vote for was a good idea and pyre approval voting is not (although pyre approval voting is better than the previous system). EDIT: This is my opinion feel free to disagree and share your thoughts.

PS: Each sequential state is better , isn't this cool ?

By limiting the number of delegates you can vote for to 33 you can be guaranteed a delegate seat with 17% of the shares.   You simply give 50.0001% of you shares to 66 delegates.  Everyone else combined would be unable to muster enough votes to kick you out.    So the lower limit actually makes it vulnerable to a much lower threshold.

So if you allow 101 votes, someone with 51% can own it all.   If you only allow 33 votes, then someone with 51% can still own over 51% of the delegates which is the same as owning it all.  But now they can be assured a spot with just 17% of the shares because you are always subject to the 51% attack in what ever group you happen to be in.   So if you allow everyone 33 votes then 51% of 33 is enough to control all 33 delegates in that group and no one else will have enough stake to elect another group of 33 with more than 49% approval. 

Assume 67% of the people agree 100% on 67% of the delegates.   The other 33% are up for grabs and can be taken by who ever has 17% of the shares.

I think I understood your concerns and why you don't want the limit in that form.
I agree it might give 17% shareholder too much delegates. And changing the limit just changes these 17% (51 delegates limit would give someone with 25% stake control over 50 delegates)

What about decreasing the vote weight of people who have already elected delegates by 1% per delegate?
This should prevent groups with 51% to elect all the delegates.

Consider these elections:

1 Order delegates by pure Approval Voting
2 Pick the highest voted delegate and mark it as elected.
3 Multiply the vote weight of everyone who voted for the delegate from 2. by (NUMBER_OF_DELEGATES-1)/NUMBER_OF_DELEGATES (should be around -1%)
4 If not all delegates are elected continue from 1 (accounting for 3)

This should prevent anyone from taking up all delegate seats.
Any thoughts?
« Last Edit: July 03, 2014, 07:48:12 pm by emski »

Offline emski

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1282
    • View Profile
    • http://lnkd.in/nPbhxG
Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
« Reply #95 on: July 04, 2014, 05:49:16 am »
Any comments on the above ?

Offline bytemaster

Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
« Reply #96 on: July 04, 2014, 07:47:13 pm »
Initial thoughts are that it would be computationally expensive.  But I haven't thought too much about it yet.
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 emski

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1282
    • View Profile
    • http://lnkd.in/nPbhxG
Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
« Reply #97 on: July 04, 2014, 10:33:49 pm »
Well its generally needed once every 101 blocks when ordering delegates.

Offline santaclause102

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2486
    • View Profile
Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
« Reply #98 on: July 24, 2014, 08:28:29 pm »
Well if you have 51% you will obviously get all the delegate seats unless there is a limit on the amount of delegates you can vote for.
I personally think the limit as a very good idea.
If you have one entity that has 51%, you have bigger problems and you must trust this entity to use the system anyway.  Limiting the votes doesn't change this at all. 51% could control the network no matter what, and ignore votes cast for any other delegates, this is the nature of POS the same way that 51% of hashing power controls bitcoin (if one entity controls 51% of the hash power you must trust that entity to use the system).

Getting rid of the limit is a good idea and makes it harder for bad actors with less than 51% to get their unpopular delegates elected.  If a bad actor gets 51% stake the network must be forked to remove them regardless.

The fork can happen at any time when there is disagreement regardless of the % of any party (5% can fork ignoring the rest and you cant do anything about this).
Even if those 51% decide to fork and separate it is their choice. However an entity (may be a group) controlling 51% shouldn't be given total control over the network.

In the previous scenario when the stakeholders' vote was limited to max 33 delegates an entity with 51% will not be able to get all the delegate seats. Guaranteed representation at 33% wasn't a bad idea either.

That's why I think limiting the amount of delegates you can vote for was a good idea and pyre approval voting is not (although pyre approval voting is better than the previous system). EDIT: This is my opinion feel free to disagree and share your thoughts.

PS: Each sequential state is better , isn't this cool ?

By limiting the number of delegates you can vote for to 33 you can be guaranteed a delegate seat with 17% of the shares.   You simply give 50.0001% of you shares to 66 delegates.  Everyone else combined would be unable to muster enough votes to kick you out.    So the lower limit actually makes it vulnerable to a much lower threshold.

So if you allow 101 votes, someone with 51% can own it all.   If you only allow 33 votes, then someone with 51% can still own over 51% of the delegates which is the same as owning it all.  But now they can be assured a spot with just 17% of the shares because you are always subject to the 51% attack in what ever group you happen to be in.   So if you allow everyone 33 votes then 51% of 33 is enough to control all 33 delegates in that group and no one else will have enough stake to elect another group of 33 with more than 49% approval. 

Assume 67% of the people agree 100% on 67% of the delegates.   The other 33% are up for grabs and can be taken by who ever has 17% of the shares.
Somewhere else (dont remember where) it was said that the 33 limit is not in place. The wiki still says
Quote
Currently each share can vote for a max of 1/3 of the amount of active delegates in any round (currently 101 / 3 = 33)
What is correct?

Offline bytemaster

Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
« Reply #99 on: July 24, 2014, 09:02:38 pm »
Each share can vote for 101
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 santaclause102

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2486
    • View Profile
Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
« Reply #100 on: July 24, 2014, 09:21:34 pm »
Each share can vote for 101
Couldn't edit it on the wiki..

Offline vikram

Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
« Reply #101 on: July 24, 2014, 09:27:27 pm »
Each share can always vote for 101 in the blockchain.

If you choose to use the vote_random strategy when transferring, it will limit your transfer to a slate size of at most 33 for increased privacy.

Offline santaclause102

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2486
    • View Profile
Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
« Reply #102 on: July 24, 2014, 09:38:02 pm »
Ok. So if I do that no one can see (except the delegates that received the vote?) who I voted for?
Why is the option called "random" or can I not select who I vote for?

Offline bytemaster

Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
« Reply #103 on: July 24, 2014, 09:40:02 pm »
Ok. So if I do that no one can see (except the delegates that received the vote?) who I voted for?
Why is the option called "random" or can I not select who I vote for?

Everyone sees who the shares voted for, but no one can link two of your transactions simply because they voted for the same unique set of 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.

Offline santaclause102

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2486
    • View Profile
Re: Approval Voting vs Delegation
« Reply #104 on: September 02, 2014, 09:57:45 pm »
With delegation voting, in order to get rid of that bad stack (no more whack-a-mole anymore) there would have to be a hard fork which doesn't honor his stake right?