Debate on Decentralized Voting Methodology Optimization

archive

#1

[ARCHIVED] General Discussion Channel (Discord/Telegram) (28-09-2018)
Link: https://discord.gg/uvSpbQN

Lollr: You can’t force people to vote, most ppl don’t care about competitions as seen before.

Ludx: I’d prefer seeing community vote on stuff like this using the Particl Desktop governance after the team has chosen the best ones for voting :slight_smile: We’re close, but not quite there yet.

2cuse: That’s gonna be awesome… so larger holders still get more say though right?

Not sure that model is ideal for an instance like this but still pretty cool to do it that way

Ludx: if you own a larger share, imo its fair that your vote has more power, then again, especially in this downtrend I think we’ve seen the whales accumulate more and more, and things might get unfair at some point. if someone has good ideas for a more fair formula against something like this, we’re listening :slight_smile:

2cuse: Yes that is a tricky problem…

Lollr: Why give bigger holders more power?

2cuse: Well, that’s how coin voting works. Else, how do you determine weight?

Lollr: Why not everyone equal amount?

2cuse: How do you prevent multiple voting per user if you don’t?

Lollr: Limit one per user

Ludx: …and how you’d do that?

2cuse: I could get 7 addresses and vote 7 times

Lollr: Same problem with big holders with more power. Just now you’ve eliminated the “big holder” problem, right?

Ludx: Your weight is the only thing that can fairly define your stake in the project/network and the number of votes you could cast. You can create an unlimited amount of addresses to vote from…

Lollr: Limit the amount of addresses you can create

2cuse: That’s really just how it has to work now in the absence of other solutions

Ludx: Ok, so you’d want us to operate like a bank, give you one bank account number?

Lollr: No? Just limited, for instance, 4 addresses. Why would someone need more?

Ludx: If we limit something like that, it’s going to be super easy to analyze who owns what address

2cuse: It’s just not how this stuff works…You need to have unlimited addresses

Ludx: Features like that is something we’re not going to consider at all

Lollr: Even if transactions are private? Is there a way with a vote to check from what wallet (as in, desktop wallet) it comes from?

Ludx: You know from which address (holding X amount of coins) a vote for option Y came from.

At least for now, not sure if we can avoid that. Removing that info goes even above my paygrade :slight_smile:

Secure anon voting would have use cases in all over the world right now, but the problems are not easy to fix.

Lollr: Let’s say you have the desktop wallet.

The wallet holds 15 addresses (so no restrictions)

Would it be possible to limit the number of addresses from that specific Desktop wallet with a voting process? (or at least recognize votes coming in from that specific desktop wallet)

As I understand, voting is used for unwanted products in the marketplace, right?

What if there’s a voting period once a week for instance and in that week, 4 addresses from that specific desktop wallet can vote (giving more power to someone who has a sh*load of coins), but still keep it balanced with the limitation of 4 addresses being able to vote

2cuse: I’ll just download the desktop multiple times

Lollr: Would that work?

2cuse: Why not?

Lollr: Wouldn’t it synchronize with your other wallet? Of course, you can always hook up 2 computers if you weren’t able to download multiple wallets on 1 pc. But at least it takes more effort.

Ludx: Currently, I think that if you’d do that, it would show in the vote results that are calculated before the voting ends, BUT when the voting ends everything is recalculated and if you have sold all the coins that you voted with, your votes carry no weight.

Lollr: So a rule to keep the part while voting could do the trick?

Ludx: Well, yes, that’s the rule. When the voting period ends, if you still hold the coins you voted with, your vote is valid, if not, then it’s invalid. In my opinion, that’s fair.

If you got rid of just a part of your coins after you sent the vote and before the vote ended, you might still have weight left over for the vote you gave, but it’s not something we’re going to implement right now

Lollr: I think we’re talking past each other.

Problem: Big hodlers having too much voting power.
Solution: Everyone has equal amount of voting power.

Problem: Big holders could then create 100 addresses and have more voting weight anyway.
Solution: Limit the amount of addresses being able to vote from 1 Desktop wallet (if that’s even possible to restrict or recognize).

Problem: Big holders could just install more wallets

Ludx: In my opinion, this is fair. Should the voting power be 1:1 to weight is another question.
The amount of addresses does not improve your voting power

uuiuiuiuuuiu: Lollr, there is no solution to your problem.

It’s actually not a problem but a feature once fair distribution has been reached.

Ludx: Exactly, the problem is fair distribution and if there’s no fair distribution, the question is whether we want or not to do something about it.

In that case, should the voting power be 1:1 to weight is another question.

Lollr: But what if the weight is equal? Why give someone more weight?

Ludx: It’s a possibility, but an extremely low one. I’d just solve that by allowing the voting option that got that weight first to win the vote.

Lollr: I think I misunderstand the meaning of weight. Weight is the amount of power in a vote?

Ludx: Weight is the number of coins you hold or the number of coins you want to vote with for a vote.

You don’t necessarily need to vote with all your weight when we get this finished.

Lollr: What if you take away the weight? Just 1 vote is 1 vote (equal amount of weight for everyone, not changeable for X number of coins)

Ludx: Well, that’s the first thing we implemented together with all the stuff that needs to be in place to implement governance at all. You can just create unlimited addresses with voting power of one that way. It “works”, but can be faked easily, this is an incremental process, after this simple voting we add weights and start improving the voting in multiple ways.

Lollr: Is it possible to see/register from what desktop wallet the addresses voted?

Ludx: No, that’s not possible

TheKraken: About your comment on hooking up multiple computers, you could create hundreds of VM’s without breaking a sweat and rig the system if you don’t tie your vote to your own coinweight. Let me assure you that the team knows what they are talking about and know a lot more than me and you both compiled and multiplied with a factor of 100. :slight_smile:

I mean, this isn’t something they came up with after a jolly evening drinking beers and said eureka, we got it!


#2

We can have both options, 1 vote per address and 1vote:1 Part (can be 0.1 vote)

Users can create many addresses to distribute their PARTs, but it’s okay… maybe we can set a requirement (could be variable) how much is the minimum PART for an address to hold to qualify for voting…

Or for public voting where every voter is tied in to 1 user account(like forum, or social media n do KYC) it wont be private then. Or can we require that account verification while keeping their info private?

Or if we can make 1 Vote per IP or Wallet


#3

Lol that’s my great nightshift conversation. :sweat_smile:

If i’d only knew that there’s no way to check what addresses voted from a specific wallet… This whole conversation would’ve been a lot shorter hehe.


#4

Ehe! Well it was a pertinent question and now we archived it to make it easier for people to learn more about the governance system.