Quadraticvoting can be very useful. You basically vote with money. If you want a idea to be implemented, you can do this (I’m copying Arthur S Falls here) Pay 1 dollar for your first vote, 10 dollar for your second vote and 100 dollar for your third and final vote. When everybody voted, the money get split up equally (very important here NOT PROPORTIONALLY) between the voters.
The funny about quadraticvoting is IMHO, that you have a voting system of rich people who can pay a lot of money to vote and poor people who are in larger numbers can pay little money, but still get a money portion of a big spender. I just simply LOVE this idea, voting with money and distributing it equally among the voters. It also incentives people to vote.
Bitvote is a time based voting system. The beautiful thing is nobody can buy time, this is a demo of bitvote in action.
The only thing that sounded logic in my head, was if the SAFE Network had a voting system that just take the 2 ideas and combines them. So a voting system that is based on money & time, you know what they say: time = money.
BTW QuadraticVoting was an Ether.hack project, I didn’t pay it attention at first, but it’s a really powerful idea.
Since I can see how one votes, it makes sense to lend my ETH to a vote seller in exchange for a deposit in BTC, then after they vote according to my instructions, return me 90% of the borrowed ETH to get their BTC deposit back.
If they didn’t vote as requested they could forfeit their deposit at little risk to me as long as the escrower is reliable.
Have they sorted out a way to address the “double account” creating problem? Just that, as the guy says on the video - the app would be “useless” otherwise. This all leads into the whole authentication issue again too. Interesting though.
It reminds me of something I recently suggested in how it works, if you just replace “coins” with “time” - very similar mechanism involved as to thinking about how to apportion resources when voting. My scheme was different in that it was restricted to SafeNet though, but without the other issues.
I think the Bitvote idea seems like something that could gauge public opinion on various things, find out “What matters” to people etc and could evolve further.
[quote=“Al_Kafir, post:3, topic:6502”]
Have they sorted out a way to address the “double account” creating problem?
[/quote]Nothing will solve that problem, not even biometric.
I side with janitor on this one. This enables big spenders to buy results by capitalizing on poverty. With SAFE it’s even worse as the big money can just create dozens of accounts and instead spend 1 coin each. Therefore avoiding the exponential multi vote fee and increasing the vote count in his favor. He’d lose a bit of money, but considering that with this method one can get 100 votes for 100 tokens as opposed to 3 for 100, it’s a win.
With that said, what the flying F%^k happened to the emoji’s!!! @frabrunelle you better not be up to this! I know where you live!!! JK JK. better smiley emoji here
Seriously though, tell me this change was motivated by something like copyright issues. These bright yellow wannabe’s just ain’t cuttin it. Feel me!? better smiley emoji here
With SAFEnetwork we can handle this better than that - for example, voting rights earned according to vault rank or Safecoin farmed etc. No system is perfect, but we can avoid the worst case.
@Al_Kafir & @Tonda
Maybe requiring a phone number will further reduce the amount of account one can create to vote. Yeah I know that there are dual sims, but who would buy 50 phones just to create 100 votes + spend 100 tokens + the time needed through bitvote.
Anonymity would be lost. Though in this case there’s no need for the triple combo you listed. Their activity would be directly linked to them.
Dudes with lots of moola and strongly motivating self interests. I still like the general idea though. We really need a fool proof voting system. It has MANY positive implications!
Wouldn’t this just restrict voting rights to farmers? I’d have thought investors would be more important, however ultimately aiming for all the Community/users having a vote. It just seems simpler to me to issue “votecoin” to all initial investors 1:1 at launch - voter registration would already have been taken care of then - by way of holding msafe.
TBH, I don’t understand how anybody could dismiss this approach, whilst simultaneously supporting the similar mechanism in Safex. (not you,…just saying generally.)
And…as @Tonda asked - where the hell is the big smiley face etc gone?
The initial investors aren’t the only ones of importance. The continued fate of SAFE shouldn’t rest on only the early adopters with financial holdings. This too being a restriction.
Votecoin is used then forever absent unless reissued. How would that work?
I know!!! I’m dying inside. Deity help me!! <= I reluctantly use this impostor to visually convey my emotion …
Wasn’t here a forum or some community or something that assigned it’s users a unique computer generated image in order to create a form of unique ID? Like couldn’t you send the user a unique fractal or something, something they could easily glance at and recognize but would be unique to them. Keep that ID fractal private and secret (easy on SAFE) then have the app send the user a puzzle of like say 9 - 20 other fractals in a random grid with your fractal in a random position somewhere on the grid. Since your fractal is familiar the user should be able to recognize it (presumeably) but since it’s private and and an attacker doesn’t know which one is which randomly clicking on pictures doesn’t really help. Especially since the false pictures keep changing. One could even further strengthen this by adding additional true fractals to one’s secret ID database so that one’s “true” image one was looking for kept changing as well.
How this would help prevent double voting is that one could tie the votes to the series of unique ID images. So in order to vote AGAIN one would need to generate a new set of data.
Of course…I agree. I also concede that it could be argued that to an extent, it starts off with Money = Power. However, I would counter argue that this is mitigated by a number of things. Firstly, as you point out, it is really Investment in project = Power - this is merely a starting point (and who else should we start with?). The end point/goal would be to spread the initial coin issue to the wider community and most users ending up with one vote. (insofar as that is feasible.)
The mechanism by which this is achieved is by holdings being reduced by say 5% each time coins are used to vote on anything - these would be re-cycled and given away. This is why I said it’s similar to the Bitvote time mechanism - similar thinking.
The “time” thing, I’m not really getting - It seems to be a superficial/arbitrary measure and could be anything really - 24 hours, 50 beans, 100 points etc…whatever.
I’m thinking of a Foundation operated app that basically runs the voting system.
An issue is voted on by coins being sent to an address to register vote. Voters can use as many coins as they want, dependent on how strongly they feel about an issue. The app deducts and re-cycles 5% of each “sent” amount and returns the rest. By this method, the system will become more democratic over time.
No idea how difficult this is technically, but doesn’t sound too complicated to me.
If 430m coins in existence, then this can spread Democracy quite wide and if we need even more then just swap all votecoins for 2 or more votecoin2s by the same method. Remember, they would be on Blockchain too.
Edit:
Actually, thinking about it, 50% would be a better reduction rate. Also, bear in mind that this removes all the unique user/authentication issues. As with the case of “Anonymous” the group when discussing with @Blindsite2k – we don’t need to know who the individual voters/Anonymous members are, we just want to ascertain what direction the members of Anonymous want Anonymous/Safe Community to go in…….
The “time” piece in bitvote is to make you wait before you can vote. If you vote regularly, sometimes you have to “time out” before you can vote on something. The weight of your vote will be lighter in comparison to someone who doesn’t vote often. When some one who doesn’t vote often votes, it’ll have more impact. It’s like every time you vote because you vote often, you throw 50 eurocent in the piggy bank. Somebody who doesn’t vote a lot when they vote, it’s like throwing 50 euro in the piggy bank.
Time is also the thing that makes all the voters equal, because everybody got the same time and you can’t buy time.
Of course you can buy time, because it is proxied (represented) by a difference in the value of different votes (addresses) that you introduce with that idea.
(Another issue which I don’t care about is that the younger one is, the less voting impact he has).
This turns the old “vote early and vote often” wisdom upside down
Seriously, it’s no different from the quadratic dream which was busted in the first comment above (and that’s why it was ignored, except by Tonda).
So a power broker arranges vote buying operation in which this “time value” of addresses is arbitraged in exchange for BTC or Safecoin.
If you haven’t voted and want to make some money voting, put up a deposit, vote as instructed, and profit.
And also if not voting this year can help you get a better value next year (say your party will win anyway, or you simply want to make money by selling your vote), you won’t vote. Your “incentives” would discourage voting.
Last but not least it’s not possible to know which addresses is owned by a unique human.
Yes, actually, their use is beginning to be hampered everywhere that copyright laws are enforced.
It seems that the guy who got the copyright on the first Smiley Face (the one who got the idea from Forrest Gump, if you remember) has decided it’s time to enforce his intellectual property with a vengeance.
Hey!! What are we talking about voting on, anyway?
Usually “vote” is about a political process which is already corrupted by coercion, so why be doing it at all?
Entering into a vote about a contractual matter is a different thing. Contracts involve a meeting of the minds, identified or not, to be valid.
Generally “voting” is talking about a “social contract” which is a term of art, not valid when subjected to close examination. Votes depending on social contracts are an excuse to do coercive stuff in the name of everybody, as if everybody agreed to be bound by the vote in the first place.
Though I liked something of the concept as @19eddyjohn75 presented, I find myself wondering. Seems that if there were a context in which the actually vote itself would not be a travesty, arrangements could be made by consenting parties to see that it’s fair. The initial appeal seems to be an effort to create a good idea on top of a bad idea, to make it more appealing, rather than realizing the bad idea was bad in the first place.
Give me his address, NOW!!! This f^%ker is gonna eat my boot before he dies!!! The horror!!! He will scream as he sits in a small crate I folded him into and shipped to a remote location near the equator. I’ll monitor his vitals and shock his ass every time he falls asleep. All the while sipping fresh spring water from the comfort of my home. Muahahahaha!!! Something to take my mind off of the loss of my precioussssss!!!
A voting systems can be applied to almost everything. For instance: Monsanto may not grow GMO’s in nature yes or no.
With quadraticvoting
Monsanto will maybe pay $10 million for a yes vote.
1 million people can vote no, for $11
End result the people win, $21 million gets divided in 1000001 voters, every voter gets $20.99.
Money in return for voting, will make people vote. A big spender will simply loose their BIG money.
Are you serious?
You just keep ignoring the gaping holes highlighted by other commenters.
Screw the torpedoes - full steam ahead!
Your example isn’t very good (a voter from Alaska shouldn’t have the ability to vote on what Monsanto does with their field in Ohio, etc.), but let’s ignore that.
The CEO should fire the moron who instead of buying required “proxy votes” in the open market shelled out $10 mil to achieve the same objective. The proper procedure is pay a PR agency $1 mil and get them employ paid “activists” and Amazon Mechanical Turks to get this voted in for 10% of the amount.
A big spender will buy proxy votes for the smallest amount of money required, unless the overseeing body has a complete insight in all their spending on all blockchains which they could use to buy votes.
In addition to being unworkable, the idea is silly because it rewards the creation of any, but especially contentious, decision making, because it directly benefits the State. In your example, if you want to prevent Monsanto from growing GMOs, you need to give $100 to the US kleptocracy represented by The US Congress. Instead of cutting the budget deficit they could organize 2-3 important votes per year to squeeze extra cache from each taxpayer who doesn’t want to give up his rights.
The horror!!! He will scream as he sits in a small crate I folded him into and shipped to a remote location near the equator. I’ll monitor his vitals and shock his ass every time he falls asleep. All the while sipping fresh spring water from the comfort of my home. Muahahahaha!!! Something to take my mind off of the loss of my precioussssss!!!
Are you serious?