It's not a 400 vote gap. If someone only gets 100 NO's then they only need 100 x 1.1 Yes's to win.
Pre-Proposal: Would you like to be able to vote with number?
- Thread starter demo
- Start date
- Status
It's not a 400 vote gap. If someone only gets 100 NO's then they only need 100 x 1.1 Yes's to win.
demo
Well-known member
I dont understand what you have just said...
Kevin Stalker
Active member
Thats not what i am seeing. Here is an example:
PROPOSAL “A_DASH_BRANED_ATM_IN_SOUTH_JERSEY_USA“ (ACTIVE)
Votes: 399 Yes / 81 No / 11 Abstain
Will be funded: No. This proposal needs additional 83 Yes votes to become funded.
This proposal - copied from the masternode voting page right now, has generally good support, but won't get funding unless a lot more masternodes get involved. If masternodes get more lazy in the future it seems to me it will become hard to spend our budget. I'm quite new to it, so maybe the more experienced guys here can put me right?
Kevin Stalker
Active member
Yes - ok. I use words like "good proposal" flippantly as if the term is valid. If we define a good proposal as one which has the majority of votes, however, it makes more sense. The obvious way to do this is to simply demand 51% majority. Why not just do that?
Not sure I understand - majority of what? 51% of total number of masternodes - 2000+? Or 51% of votes for specific proposal - like 11 YES vs 5 NO?
The gap is here to asure somewhat overwhelming support and avoid situations in which controversial proposals could be funded.
Then I don't know, someone needs to explain it to me / us again.
Kevin Stalker
Active member
i suggest we go for a percentage of the actual votes cast. Make it 60% if you like. But lets face it, a proposal that gets funded due due slightly more than half the votes, but which you think is not "good" is not very harmful overall. The dash would otherwise be not created anyway, so its not a lot lost.
demo
Well-known member
<vote history>
Would you like to be able to cast votes using numbers and extract the results as an average?
*yes 4 vote(s) 10.8%
no 30 vote(s) 81.1%
other 3 vote(s) 8.1%
</vote history>
Would you like to be able to cast votes using numbers and extract the results as an average?
*yes 4 vote(s) 10.8%
no 30 vote(s) 81.1%
other 3 vote(s) 8.1%
</vote history>
demo
Well-known member
What do you mean by "if you like". This is not an accurate wording.
Could you please explain in details what is your proposed selection process?
Does your proposed selection process respects itself?
How does your proposed selection process compares with the alternative ones?
Last edited:
Kevin Stalker
Active member
Its a very simple change. Currently a proposal needs to get a majority of 10% of the total number of masternodes in existence in order to be funded. This is risky because of possible masternode apathy. I am saying proposals get funded if they have more than 60% of the total Yes/No vote count (excluding abstains). Everything else stays the same as it is now.
demo
Well-known member
So a proposal gets funded if it has (for example) just 2 YES and 1 NO ? Regardless of the total number of the masternodes?
This is what you are proposing?
If you allow reversible transactions, then I could find a reason to your proposal. Otherwise your proposal seems absurd.
Last edited:
Kevin Stalker
Active member
Thats correct, in theory, but of course that would never happen. You are suggesting that it is possible that there could be a proposal that would be so banal that out of 4000 masternodes only 3 could be bothered to express an opinion. If that ever happens we will have a lot more problems than just the unnecessary funding of a project.
demo
Well-known member
Of course it may happen a few masternodes to be able to express their opinion, especially if the proposal enters the budget system exactly 72 hours before the budget finalization. Accept it : Your proposed selection process, as long as the reversible transactions are not allowed, is considered as a stupid one and will cause chaos.
Additionaly, your proposed selection process has another important deficiency. It forces the participation, and refuses the right of abstention which is a very important right in the voting procedure. It is a total nuisance to force the voters to vote for whatever stupid proposal someone may think. The voters should have the right to abstain and that way protect themselves from troll proposals. But of course in some circumstances the community may want to diminish the abstention, and in those specific cases your proposed selection process may fit well.
Last edited:
Kevin Stalker
Active member
Abstaining is the same as not voting. There is no other way to count it. We clearly need a cutoff date for proposals, after which they go into the following month. Don't we have that?
demo
Well-known member
We dont need a cutoff date for proposals, if reversible transactions are implemented.
Last edited:
demo
Well-known member
When we spot the masternodes among those who voted here, the result is
Masters: yes/no/other=0/6/1
Slaves: yes/no/other=4/26/2
<vote history> <-- why vote history is usefull?
Would you like to be able to cast votes using numbers and extract the results as an average?
*yes 4 vote(s) 10.3%
no 32 vote(s) 82.1%
</vote history>
Masters: yes/no/other=0/6/1
Slaves: yes/no/other=4/26/2
<vote history> <-- why vote history is usefull?
Would you like to be able to cast votes using numbers and extract the results as an average?
*yes 4 vote(s) 10.3%
no 32 vote(s) 82.1%
- aleix
- splawik21
- tungfa (masternode)
- itscrazybro
- yidakee
- JGCMiner
- MangledBlue
- babygiraffe
- TaoOfSatoshi
- GNULinuxGuy
- qwizzie
- QuantumExplorer (masternode)
- bandidorl
- camosoul
- dotbeee
- spatula
- kot
- TroyDASH (masternode)
- martinf (masternode)
- jarroyo
- JZA
- halso
- piggy
- DashNation
- Darren
- bigshort
- Kevin Stalker
- Michael Q
- GuerraDiValute (masternode)
- Acedian (masternode)
- slava_m
- Chadrick
- noobtrader
- GrandMasterDash (masternode)
- TheDashGuy
</vote history>
Last edited:
demo
Well-known member
The third vote arrived a long time ago, and I havent yet started hacking the code.
I think I will be judged guilty of not keeping my promises.
<vote history> <-- why vote history is usefull?
Would you like to be able to cast votes using numbers and extract the results as an average?
*yes 5 vote(s) 12.5%
no 32 vote(s) 80.0%
other 3 vote(s) 7.5%
<vote history>
I think I will be judged guilty of not keeping my promises.
<vote history> <-- why vote history is usefull?
Would you like to be able to cast votes using numbers and extract the results as an average?
*yes 5 vote(s) 12.5%
no 32 vote(s) 80.0%
other 3 vote(s) 7.5%
<vote history>
Last edited:
If you insult me long enough, perhaps I will like you and your proposals more. Or perhaps not...
demo
Well-known member
The truth is not an insult. It is a help.
Pietro Speroni
Active member
Hello,
sorry if I arrive late. I just set up my masternode, and I am still having trouble with it. I am also writing a book on eDemocracy, and have been working on eDemocracy for several years now (at least from 2009 nearly full time, and interested from 2005). I am a mathematician interested in voting theory, I am actually writing a book on eDemocracy right now (you can find it and support me on Patreon).
The idea of voting with a number is the proposal I wanted to make, so well done in beating me on time on this. But it is very important that this is done well. And to do well you should not take the average, but the median.
I saw other people have suggested the median before but not everybody was able to defend it properly. So please let me do it for them.
The median, respect to the average have several qualities.
You know what a Condorcet Winner is? Basically when you have several options, the Condorcet winner is the proposal that wins all pair wise comparisons. In other words, if you have n proposals of which you are going to implement only one, given two proposals a, and b, a pairwise comparison between a and b measures how many people would prefer a to b and how many people would prefer b to a. A Condorcet winner is a proposal that is preferred respect to ALL other proposals. Not always there exist a Condorcet Winner. There are some loops where the majority of people prefer A to B, B to C and C to A. Which is weird at the beginning.
Now, there is a theorem, theorem of Black, or of the median voter, that in simple terms says:
If:
H.1) you need to decide a number
H.2) the number is on a one dimensional space
H.3) every person have their favourite number and how much they like the results goes down as you go away from that number
In other words if it is unidimensional single peaked.
THEN:
T.1) there exist a Condorcet winner among all the numbers,
T.2) if everybody votes for their peak, the median will be a Condorcet winner among all the numbers voted.
T.1 is already a really good result. There exist a condorcet winner, wow!, we have a solution. We don't need to find compromises where no majority likes. But the really good thing is T.2 that it is possible to calculate this number without having to ask everybody to vote with their whole spectrum (how much they like each possible number).
This is amazing. Now, the average does not have this property, and it does not have this property for some very clear reasons. The average is subject to strategic voting. Let me explain, if everybody has voted, and only I need to vote, and I know how everybody have voted I can pretty much manipulate the result by voting something very extreme. Suppose that we need to decide how much each proposal should cost. Now it is 5 dash, some people are proposing 1 dash, other 0.1 and so on. Suppose that you want a result being 2.3 dash, and the actual average is 2.1 dash, and 4235 nodes have already voted. Now you are the last one, you can pretty much calculate a number such that the resulting average is exactly 2.3. And if you are allowed to vote negative numbers you can also do the same trick going down.
Notice that this does not happen if you use the median.
So, great idea, congratulations. But make it the median, not the average.
Pietro Speroni
P.S. I am tempted to upload the file of the chapter of my book on this topic. But I just arrived and I am not sure how this would be taken.
sorry if I arrive late. I just set up my masternode, and I am still having trouble with it. I am also writing a book on eDemocracy, and have been working on eDemocracy for several years now (at least from 2009 nearly full time, and interested from 2005). I am a mathematician interested in voting theory, I am actually writing a book on eDemocracy right now (you can find it and support me on Patreon).
The idea of voting with a number is the proposal I wanted to make, so well done in beating me on time on this. But it is very important that this is done well. And to do well you should not take the average, but the median.
I saw other people have suggested the median before but not everybody was able to defend it properly. So please let me do it for them.
The median, respect to the average have several qualities.
You know what a Condorcet Winner is? Basically when you have several options, the Condorcet winner is the proposal that wins all pair wise comparisons. In other words, if you have n proposals of which you are going to implement only one, given two proposals a, and b, a pairwise comparison between a and b measures how many people would prefer a to b and how many people would prefer b to a. A Condorcet winner is a proposal that is preferred respect to ALL other proposals. Not always there exist a Condorcet Winner. There are some loops where the majority of people prefer A to B, B to C and C to A. Which is weird at the beginning.
Now, there is a theorem, theorem of Black, or of the median voter, that in simple terms says:
If:
H.1) you need to decide a number
H.2) the number is on a one dimensional space
H.3) every person have their favourite number and how much they like the results goes down as you go away from that number
In other words if it is unidimensional single peaked.
THEN:
T.1) there exist a Condorcet winner among all the numbers,
T.2) if everybody votes for their peak, the median will be a Condorcet winner among all the numbers voted.
T.1 is already a really good result. There exist a condorcet winner, wow!, we have a solution. We don't need to find compromises where no majority likes. But the really good thing is T.2 that it is possible to calculate this number without having to ask everybody to vote with their whole spectrum (how much they like each possible number).
This is amazing. Now, the average does not have this property, and it does not have this property for some very clear reasons. The average is subject to strategic voting. Let me explain, if everybody has voted, and only I need to vote, and I know how everybody have voted I can pretty much manipulate the result by voting something very extreme. Suppose that we need to decide how much each proposal should cost. Now it is 5 dash, some people are proposing 1 dash, other 0.1 and so on. Suppose that you want a result being 2.3 dash, and the actual average is 2.1 dash, and 4235 nodes have already voted. Now you are the last one, you can pretty much calculate a number such that the resulting average is exactly 2.3. And if you are allowed to vote negative numbers you can also do the same trick going down.
Notice that this does not happen if you use the median.
So, great idea, congratulations. But make it the median, not the average.
Pietro Speroni
P.S. I am tempted to upload the file of the chapter of my book on this topic. But I just arrived and I am not sure how this would be taken
.
Last edited:
- Status