SAFE Network Voting (QuadraticVoting + Bitvote)

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.) :slightly_smiling:
And…as @Tonda asked - where the hell is the big smiley face etc gone?

2 Likes

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!! :weary: <= I reluctantly use this impostor to visually convey my emotion …

1 Like

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.

I don’t know, half baked idea. I’m tired.

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. :smile:
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……. :smile:

2 Likes

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.

1 Like

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 :smirk:

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.

1 Like

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.

4 Likes

Give me his address, NOW!!! This f^%ker is gonna eat my boot before he dies!!! :imp: 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!!!

1 Like

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.

1 Like

:grin: 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.

Sorry, not getting your argument. Voting is pointless because all political processes are corrupted by coercion? Ahh…you mean Democracy itself is something we shouldn’t engage in?[quote=“fergish, post:17, topic:6502”]
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.
[/quote]
Not really grasping the distinction tbh…[quote=“fergish, post:17, topic:6502”]
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.
[/quote]
Oh No…I think that argument has been flogged to death in many other threads and to date I haven’t heard a workable alternative. This isn’t the thread for bringing that argument up again in any case - we’d just go round in circles again.
Democracy may not be perfect, but it’s better than the alternatives touted on here. :smile:

Why is that question still being asked? Anyway, the answer is no.

Glad that you made that decision for the likes of Fergish, so that he doesn’t have to tire himself considering his preferences.

And more importantly, how long this has to go on before you and Eddy admit all the proposals from this topic are completely ridiculous and open to blatant abuse by the government (or the governing body), vote buyers and vote sellers? The only party that does not benefit from this system are those who are supposed to benefit - those who aren’t corrupt(ible).

Good idea! Any one of them doesn’t work, so why not make a nightmarish combo of all three?

I already commented on the first two (open to the same type of abuse and vote buying) but I couldn’t help not to notice that true breakthrough: behavior based voting! I can already see how great that would work for some poor laborer who runs a Pi with micro SD card: if the damn thing goes down, he’s screwed. Whereas Jeff Bezos can afford to leave his home because his vaults run on EC2 cloud with high redundancy options enabled.

1 Like

Not made any decisions for @fergish, just expressing my opinion, same as you two.[quote=“janitor, post:22, topic:6502”]
And more importantly, how long this has to go on before you and Eddy admit all the proposals from this topic are completely ridiculous and open to blatant abuse by the government
[/quote]
I don’t have to “admit” anything - I’ve pointed out the problems as I see it with the “Bitvote” system and do not support it. The actual voting proposal I did make (Votecoin) has also been dismissed by you as unworkable and loses Anonymity - obviously you haven’t explained why yet and actually muted the topic when asked to explain…lol

Of course you have.

Some three weeks ago I explained in another topic that a democracy is possible in a free society (say a community or city could have a democratically elected government), but a free society is not possible within a democracy (a group of people in a country cannot organize their government as they see fit).

You support democracy and you and other voters are actively supporting the system of government that violates human rights both domestically and abroad.

And what’s this?

Your two 2 last comments before I called you out (the one quoted just above, and the other I quoted in my previous comment) show that you kept ignoring obvious weaknesses, as well as arguing for democracy. But now you say you do not support the idea (I loved how you “upped” the suggested vote recycle rate from 5% to 50% - very Chavez-like).

Yep, that pretty much sums it up.

I don’t see why not as the guy in Alaska ends up eating Monsanto’s food. Something like 99% of the food in the US is GMO. And let’s not forget all the food the U.S. exports to other countries. cough Canada cough Mexico * cough cough * Africa cough And you’re quibbling over another STATE in the same COUNTRY getting a vote? Seriously? Not to mention what with greenhouses and global warming yes it is feasible to grow food in Alaska now. It is being done. So yes they are affected by things like the whole conflict over GMO vs organic seeds. And do you have any idea how expensive it is to ship food up north and thereby how expensive food prices become? YES all voices count not just those in Ohio. Monsanto is a global issue. They are being taken to INTERNATIONAL court for crimes against humanity. I can get you the link to that if you’d like. We are long past “Is this an isolated state issue?”

This sums up my feelings on democracy nicely. It’s inherently corruptable as people inevitably buy votes.

This actually makes the most sense I’ve heard in a long time. If you’re inevitably going to buy votes and money = votes then why not do it in an organized fashion so that big spenders risk losing their money and the little guy has reason the throw in his pocket change.

Perhaps but that’s still more expensive than bribing a few key officials because you’re balancing how much people hate you and want to get you out vs how much on average it takes to bribe the Joe voter in order to break even in the polls. And different people have different prices and differing levels of integrity. And you end up bribing the general populace, therefore paying money out to the general public, rather than some individual elite. The money gets distributed more or less. Moreover next time you screw up the price of compensating your voters goes up because they end up being even more upset with you. And that’s assuming of course they don’t take your money and vote the other way just to screw you.

Well this would motivate people to be salient of their rights and politics. You don’t stay informed and your wallet ends up hurting.

Of course this begs the question why have the gov’t in the first question or the policies or services in question?

1 Like

I hoped that example won’t become an object of discussion, but … The guy Alaska and any guy anywhere could end up eating food that contains Monsanto’s inputs. But if you eat something bad at Chipotle (or buy it at Whole Foods) that doesn’t mean you can sue some random guy from any of their suppliers. Your relationship is with the seller.

In the rest of your argument you are justifying One Government and global(ist) control over everyone. How sad. I’d rather be free and do my best to buy food from suppliers I trust (I don’t think there’s anything wrong with GMO, by the way).

Your right is to not be informed. Not consuming the mainstream media doesn’t and can’t void any of your rights.
But I think you’re also wrong on the most basic level: like I said - but you didn’t understand that - this type of vote is nothing but an additional tax. So here’s the same example in extreme: using this system, the government organizes a vote on raising the debt ceiling.

If you’re against it, you have to pay (e.g. pay this new tax). If you are for it, your vote is initially basically free (e.g. it costs you $50 to vote, but you’re a freeloader who gets more than $50 through various debt-funded Federal programs).
If you don’t vote, you’re at the mercy of whoever wins but in any case in the long term you lose (either you have to pay more tax or you accept to owe even more in future taxes).

But secondly, if the government either isn’t happy with the outcome or likes to collect money from the voters, they can pretend they want to be more responsive and put this matter up for a vote once a month. And then further break it down and put to the vote each individual Federal program, etc. There is absolutely no way a citizen can win in this game.

What is common to many of these ideas is that there is no relationship between how much one puts in and how much he gets out. And that is no coincidence: it has to be that way in democracy because without redistribution there’s no need for government. That’s why all such proposals try to remain “inclusive”.

We’re not discussing a case of rot or disease here. We’re discussing a case of genetic engineering where poison and foreign DNA has been engineered into the plant itself. Ironic that you would cite Chipotle which refuses to use GMOs and keeps it’s food organic. And yes if someone gets food poisoning and it is found the fault lies not with the retail outlet but with the supplier then YES they can be held liable. Monsanto is not some “random supplier.”

I am doing nothing of the kind. Monsanto is a global international corporation. They sell GMO seed and herbacide to multiple nations the world over and have affected ecologies, human health and economies on an international level. Several nations around the world, especially in Europe, are banning GMOs and Monsanto because of this. Moreover Monsanto has it’s own claws in politics resulting in such legislation as the Monsanto protection act in the U.S. If their product is so good why do they need political protection from consumers wanting to hold them accountable for damages? You can’t compare Monsanto to some little organic farmer or gardener on a municipal or state level who only affects themselves and their local community. If you have customers, especially unhappy customers, all over the globe then naturally you must be held accountable to them. You can’t be making a mess all over the planet and not expect people to be pissed and want you to clean it up.

I don’t care if you want to grow or eat GMOs. But when you grow GMOs and start cross contaminating your neighbours organic crops or killing off whole species of animals (like bees on which we all rely on) THEN I most certainly have an issue. When a farmer goes bankrupt and suicides because he has to buy Monsanto’s patented GMO seeds every year instead of just replanting heritage organic seeds, like what’s gone down in India, THEN we’ve got a problem. When glyphosate is showing up in human mother’s breast milk. THEN we most certainly have issues. Monsanto isn’t isolated to Ohio, it isn’t isolated to the U.S., it doesn’t keep it’s business contained, and it’s affects aren’t limited to it’s customers. Believe me I’m trying very hard not to turn this into a rant against Monsanto and GMOs though perhaps this would be best taken to another topic. But the point here is this isn’t at all about supporting some global government but rather Monsanto making a mess of a whole lot of back yards and people coming with their torches and pitchforks to hang the irresponsible corporation. Similar to what happened with BP and it’s oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. You make a big mess and a lot of people will cry foul.

Let me break this down for you. You want to grow GMO? Do it responsibly. Don’t infect organic crops. Don’t force those who do not want to eat GMO to do so or to suffer financially from crop contamination. Do not sue organic farmers when your seed blows on the wind into another farmers field when you were careless enough not to contain your crop in the first place. Organic farmers do not want anything to do with GMOs! GMOs mean loss of sales to an organic farmer, there is no reason to sue them. Which is why many organic farmers are suing Monsanto. Label GMO food as GMO food. I mean if GMO food is safe why is there so much resistance to labeling it and giving consumers a choice? Producers print new labels every quarter, it would be nothing to them to add a few new lines of text.

At the end of the day I don’t have a problem with people eating GMO or buying GMO if that’s what they choose. My problem is with how GMO and the pesticides that are connected with it affect the environment, it’s affects on human health, and the ability of organic farmers and your average urban farmer or gardener to grow their own crops in peace.

You say you want to be free to select your own suppliers that you trust. I agree! Freedom over one’s food choices works in one’s favor whether one wants to eat GMO or organic.

How this all relates to the voting system is this: Monsanto in this case affects an international community and therefore it is suitable for an internatonal community to vote on the issue at hand, not just Ohio or all of the states. The more people you affect the wider your voting circle would get.

@Blindsite2k If you want to discuss GMOs etc please take it off-topic.

Was thinking that yeah though it does tie into the subject at hand quite a bit.

1 Like