[LIPS] LIPS Digest, Vol 4, Issue 4
jan.hackfeld at lightcurve.io
Thu Feb 7 12:28:14 EST 2019
@Anthony: Thanks for your input here!
In my opinion, there are a lot of aspects mixed together with regards to
the voting system
1) What is most decentralized, simple, transparent, democratic way so
select the delegates?
=> This point should be the main objective of the voting system
2) What is the best way to ensure high productivity?
=> If missing the block reward is not a sufficiently high punishment, we
could debate adding extra measures, e.g. delegates additionally lose
some of their balance when missing their slot.
3) What is the best way to encourage community engangement?
=> In my personal opinion this is best solved via on-chain governance
and having something like a community fund. Think for something like 0.5
LSK per block go to a community fund which can finance initiatives as
Lisk Centers, Sidechain projects, meetups,...
4) How to we ensure that the network is secure and delegates cannot be
=> Possible solutions for this are adding depots for delegates and
slashing conditions, adding Byzantine fault tolerance,...
I now want to address some of the points Anthony raised:
> *If this were true, then the current system would work just fine.
> Unfortunately a large majority of voters are always going to vote for
> maximum profit. This proposal does not really change that.*
I don't claim that peoples behavior will change and I agree that
probably a large proportion would vote based on profit. This is the same
now. My point was rather that in the system of 1 vote per account, a
vote can make a difference much easier (I only need to convince people
with a balance of 500,000 LSK that I do great stuff and its worth to
vote for me). Currently, a vote makes much less of a difference as I
need to convince account holders with a balance of around 29,000,000
LSK, which is basically impossible. So people currently don't see that
their vote matters as it does not change anything.
> *1. Less motivation and resources for delegates to maintain near perfect
> up time. *
I am happy to discuss measures to ensure a perfect up time. I don't
think this is ensured by the current voting system. If one of the voting
pools now would be fine with a delegate that has only 60 % productivity,
it would likely remain in the top 101 ranks as voter would still vote
for all members in the pool to receive rewards. So maybe it is the
social pressure of the pool, but not the voting system that ensures
> *2. Much less Lisk to give away to deserving causes (Community
> donations, Lisk Centers, Meetups, Projects, etc.)*
Many delegates really do awesome additional work, which we and the
community appreciate a lot. But there are also delegates who are not
that active and mainly take the money. I don't see this as a result of
the voting system, but rather because we have so many idealistic people
involved in Lisk. I would be happy to see a community fund support these
kind of initiatives.
> *3. Reduced price of Lisk - Voters are more likely to dump than delegates*
I don't understand this point. The only factor that I see is that the
voting system may change the rewards that delegates share and this may
influence if people hold Lisk or sell Lisk.
> *4. Increased likelihood of delegates being bribed*
As mentioned above, we believe that Byzantine fault tolerance, security
deposits and slashing are helpful to secure the system. In particular,
with the fluctuation of the Lisk price and decreasing block rewards we
cannot rely on ONLY the block rewards to imply the security of the
network. (Otherwise, we would have a weak security and would say if
delegates get 5000 Euros/month the network is secure, but if they only
get 500 Euros/month the network is insecure).
> *5. Less incentive to actually become a delegate in the first place,
> which actually leads to less competition*
In my opinion, there is very little competition in the current system,
as it is super difficult for anybody to become a delegate. Keep in mind
that only people owning 500,000 LSK need to change their mind for a new
delegate to get into place in the proposed system compared to 29,000,000
LSK in the current system.
More information about the LIPS