And for what reason among this set of votes (1,2,5,23,34) the median(5) shoud be selected?
Is there a logic in that?
There is a logic in the mean, because the mean is used in the forces we can see in real nature.
Pre-Proposal: Would you like to be able to vote with number?
- Thread starter demo
- Start date
- Status
Is there a logic in that?
There is a logic in the mean, because the mean is used in the forces we can see in real nature.
It's the middle number of the set... and your example shows why it's sometimes the better method because it eliminated the anomalies / spikes (23 and 34).
Why select the middle number? Does this set (1,1,1,55,56,56,56), where the median is 55, elimitates anomalies? It is not logic.
The mean elimitates anomalies and spikes, not the median.
So the mean is a rational method in order to decide, and the median is an irrational one. But I am not going to define what rational is, this is a subject to vote. Lets put the mean and the median methods in a vote, and let the best method wins. I am 100% sure the mean method will win the median method.
What other methods exist? Except the median method (which seams irrational), tell me another alternative method, and I will apply the rule (marked in bold), in order to find the winner method.
For the example purposes, you may use whatever set of number votes you wish.
Last edited:
Using a median is a bad idea if the votes are likely to be extremely polarized (as in, very few people vote in the middle). Using a mean is a bad idea if the voting pattern has a more bell shaped curve and there are likely to be some extreme outliers
Well, then there is mode average where the most common answer wins... from your last example, 1 and 56 are the most common so you'd need a way to decide on that... or accept both as true. The mean of all six numbers is 32.285714286 yet the mean of (1 + 56) / 2 = 28.5
With large sets, the median is quite good at getting rid of spikes. The mode is answering questions where commonality appears... for example, if three people said $56 was a good price, why should we cut it in half because of a few cheapskates?
HOWEVER, the point being made is not which average is the "best" because, as you can see, we could debate statistics all night and get nowhere. We can't vote on this because that voting process itself would also require a good selection process....
I'm not trying to knock your confidence when I say this, but the fact you didn't know these different types of averages, means you haven't yet learned or experienced enough to come to a substantive solution. If you studied statistics persistently as you did with this campaign of yours, you'd be a master statistician. And I meant that in good faith because education is important to everyone.
This is exactly what you dont understand. If you accept the following bold rule as a logical one: Each selection process in order to be selected should initialy respect itself, then the most loved selection process is selected ...then you CAN vote for the best selection process, because the voting process in that case is also about to decide the required selection process....
For example, lets say we want to decide the best selection process for a specific set of number votes. What available methods do we have?
The mean average. The median average. What else? is there anything else? Lets say there is also the simple majority and the mode average.
If those are the candidates, then we put them in a vote and the best loved is selected. If majority is selected, it is not enough to be the best loved, it has to be voted also by 50%+1. This is the meaning of "the selection process respects itself".
And this is how the system converges. This can also be simulated as a "double vote", where someone casts a vote of the type <number, selection process>.
(actually the correct vote is a "triple vote" <number, selection process, minimum participation percentage> but I will explain this later on.)
Last edited:
I didnt ask you when the methods turn good or bad. I asked you to list methods. This does not prevent for anyone to first personnaly check the voting pattern and then decide his desirable method, if this is what he wants. This is also acceptable, it is part of the games theory.
We currently have the mean average and the median average method, as proposed candidate methods in order to extract a result from a set of number votes..
Is there any other desired method?
I am asking this because I am planning to put an example vote, in order for people to be able to select the desired method that is going to be used for extracting results from a number voting. We can put a vote and decide the method as long as we all agree with the following rule, which is a rule of logic: Each method in order to be selected should initialy respect itself, then the most loved method is selected.
So lets list the candidate methods, and I ll put the vote for you to understand better the example, in practice. Do you want me to put the mode also? Is there any other that someone wants?
Last edited:
It can't be done like that... there are three basic types of average (median, mean and mode) but sits within the larger subject of statistics as a whole, which is not your field of expertise. Another reason why it will never work is because the current system, while not perfect, is deemed good enough. That's why crypto is such a hard sell, because the current fiat system is "good enough" for most people... however flawed that might be. You've had this idea and you're blindly chasing it because you see a glimmer of hope... it won't work that way.
You still dont understand. I didnt ask the types of average. I asked methods in order to extract the result from a set of number votes. Someone could also propose unanimity for example, which is "in order to extract a result all numbers should be the same". This is also a method.
The yes/no vote you are using in the budget is simply a subset of the general number voting, where people are allowed to vote only 1 or -1 and not the inbetween numbers, or numbers greater or smaller. And of course also in that case, a method in order to extract the result is required. In the budget system for example, you have selected a method in order to extract the result from the 1/-1 votes (or yes/no as you call it) which involves not only how participants voted, but also the number of participants as a percentage of the total body.
So do you want me to include the method you use in the budget , in the vote I am about to put in a while that is about to decide the desirable method in order to extract the result from a set of number votes? Ok I ll do it. So the number of participants is also a variable in our problem, and we should consider that also.
Do you have any other method to propose?
Last edited:
The important thing in number voting is that the numbers that people are alowed to vote they should always be limited to a minimum and a maximum number. This is very essential. This is what happens in life also, there is always the maximum speed of light. If you cannot find the minimum and the maximum that people are allowed to vote, then the number voting cannot start.
So in its generality, people are allowed to vote from -1 to 1.
If it is a pure number voting, you are allowed to vote the inbetween numbers, and the system translates the vote to the desired minimum and maximum. And according to the case, -1 vote coressponds to the minimum number (for example, in the case of the alternative allocated budget, it could be 0) and 1 vote corresponds to the maximum number (for example in the case of the alternative allocated budget, it could be 7500).
if it is not a pure number voting but you want to vote using yes/no/other, then no is considered -1, 0 is other, and 1 is yes.
There is also the ranking voting, which can also be simulated if you allow to vote numbers inbetween -1 and 1, but not all numbers but as many numbers as the ranking requires.
After this, we have also to decide the decision method in order to extract the result (mean average, mode average, median average, simple majority, strong majority, unanimity e.t.c.), which takes also into account the percentage of the body that participates to the elections. We can decide this by voting and taking into account the bold rule.
This is the system I am planing to code. If you cast the third yes vote here in this poll, then I ll start hacking the code in order to bring it to life.
So in its generality, people are allowed to vote from -1 to 1.
If it is a pure number voting, you are allowed to vote the inbetween numbers, and the system translates the vote to the desired minimum and maximum. And according to the case, -1 vote coressponds to the minimum number (for example, in the case of the alternative allocated budget, it could be 0) and 1 vote corresponds to the maximum number (for example in the case of the alternative allocated budget, it could be 7500).
if it is not a pure number voting but you want to vote using yes/no/other, then no is considered -1, 0 is other, and 1 is yes.
There is also the ranking voting, which can also be simulated if you allow to vote numbers inbetween -1 and 1, but not all numbers but as many numbers as the ranking requires.
After this, we have also to decide the decision method in order to extract the result (mean average, mode average, median average, simple majority, strong majority, unanimity e.t.c.), which takes also into account the percentage of the body that participates to the elections. We can decide this by voting and taking into account the bold rule.
This is the system I am planing to code. If you cast the third yes vote here in this poll, then I ll start hacking the code in order to bring it to life.
Last edited:
Voting has a depth of subject beyond you, me and probably most people here reading this. More so, it's not always possible to map real world solutions to the virtual world... for one thing, in the real world we have unique identifiable people... because you might say, with some validity, that's it's not the number of MNs that's important, but the unique people behind them. And so we end up here with what we have, a situation that isn't perfect but if it really doesn't satisfy your needs, you can vote with your wallet by choosing a different token / coin.
Of course I agree with this. I would like to know how may masternodes someone has. I dont care to know his real name, he may reveal to us only a nickname in order to protect his anonymity. But the unique people behind is what really matters. Dash community should spot the unique people behind and assign to them nicknames or just numerical ids (in case they desire to hide their identity). Otherwise someone may claim that the whole dash community is a sybil attack. Thats why the web of trust or any other method capable to indentify unique people (and at the same time protect their anonymity) is needed urgently.
Why not have these options? This will appease the "just want to invest and don't care" to the "I want someone else to make decisions for me".
Yes
Abstain (so if you change your mind you can abstain again, it can also used be used to show participation vs not voting)
No
Delegate (copy the vote of another masternode)
So the investors that want this system to act like buying a stock.with a board of directors controlling a centralized company can Delegate out their votes to the "smart managers" that know so much about proposals that they can make a good choice. Maybe these managers provide subvoting proposals to elect "smart managers" that can be mailed to everyone with a check box and return envelope too. (Yeah, this sounds weird huh? I think there are investors that want this.)
These same investors can also abstain if they don't want to mess with voting or want other independent voters to make decisions.
Yes
Abstain (so if you change your mind you can abstain again, it can also used be used to show participation vs not voting)
No
Delegate (copy the vote of another masternode)
So the investors that want this system to act like buying a stock.with a board of directors controlling a centralized company can Delegate out their votes to the "smart managers" that know so much about proposals that they can make a good choice. Maybe these managers provide subvoting proposals to elect "smart managers" that can be mailed to everyone with a check box and return envelope too. (Yeah, this sounds weird huh? I think there are investors that want this.)
These same investors can also abstain if they don't want to mess with voting or want other independent voters to make decisions.
This is what I also wonder.
Why not have these options? Why having only yes/no vote in the budget?
Why not having number voting or ranking voting and of course different available methods that extract the result for us to choose?
Why not having delegation, or abstain, or any other thing someone may think?
And especially why people when asked if they desire such options to be coded, in order to give them the freedom to vote more accurately, they answer definitevely a big NO. Their behavior is a real mystery to me.
Would you like to be able to cast votes using numbers and extract the results as an average?
- *yes 2 vote(s) 7.4%
- no 22 vote(s) 81.5%
- other 3 vote(s) 11.1%
The people who voted in this poll are not rational and they desire directed voting rather than free voting.
And if we consider them a representative sample, this means that the dash community is also not rational and it is controlled and directed. If people are controlled and directed, there is no big diffetence between this situation and a sybil attack.
Nothing can evolve if irrational and controlled people are involved.
Last edited:
What if there was a system that gave higher payouts to people that proved they had control over more MNs, but equally gave them less weight in voting? That way people would have a clear decision of what was more important; more voting power vs more income
I am so glad that someone else put the example vote instead of me. I am so glad that I have partners in my assigned task of advertising number voting, and that those partners are the new dash generation!
You can read here a detailed practical explanation on how to select the desired method that is going to be used for extracting results from a number voting.
Last edited:
I like to color by numbers.
I think you should make a proposal that requires MNOs to wear certain colored contact lenses based on a hash of their previous votes against a 24bit color pallet after it's been compressed by jpeg at 1% quality. I'm not going to define the other parameters so that there's really no way to come up with an answer, a color, or a reason to do this.
I think you should make a proposal that requires MNOs to wear certain colored contact lenses based on a hash of their previous votes against a 24bit color pallet after it's been compressed by jpeg at 1% quality. I'm not going to define the other parameters so that there's really no way to come up with an answer, a color, or a reason to do this.
OMG FINGERPAINTING!Only if you get to connect the dots first!
Yes of course. The number voting was initially called (and created as) color voting. This is how they used to (and they still) vote in (and for) the universe, they use colors. And someone who owns all the votes (all the colors) he is (and/or he appears as) the light. How did you knew that?
Last edited:
<vote history>
Would you like to be able to cast votes using numbers and extract the results as an average?
The desired 3rd vote finnaly arrived. So I have to start coding. I assume that in order to compile dash from source the below is the correct procedure.
Compile Dash on Ubuntu 14.04
Would you like to be able to cast votes using numbers and extract the results as an average?
- yes 3 vote(s) 10.7%
- no 22 vote(s) 78.6%
- other 3 vote(s) 10.7%
The desired 3rd vote finnaly arrived. So I have to start coding. I assume that in order to compile dash from source the below is the correct procedure.
Compile Dash on Ubuntu 14.04
Code:
Assuming the username of the Ubuntu user is "ubuntu".
Preparation
-----------
```
sudo apt-get update
sudo apt-get upgrade
sudo apt-get install build-essential libtool autotools-dev autoconf pkg-config libssl-dev libevent-dev
sudo apt-get install libboost-all-dev
sudo apt-get install libqt5gui5 libqt5core5 libqt5dbus5 qttools5-dev qttools5-dev-tools libprotobuf-dev protobuf-compiler
sudo apt-get install libqrencode-dev
sudo apt-get install libminiupnpc-dev
```
Download dash source code
----------------------------
```
cd ~
git clone https://github.com/dashpay/dash.git
```
Download and compile Berkley DB 4.8
-----------------------------------
```
cd ~
mkdir dash/db4/
wget 'http://download.oracle.com/berkeley-db/db-4.8.30.NC.tar.gz'
tar -xzvf db-4.8.30.NC.tar.gz
cd db-4.8.30.NC/build_unix/
../dist/configure --enable-cxx --disable-shared --with-pic --prefix=/home/evan/db4/
make install
```
Compile dash with Berkley DB 4.8
-----------------------------------
```
cd ~/dash/
./autogen.sh
./configure LDFLAGS="-L/home/ubuntu/dash/db4/lib/" CPPFLAGS="-I/home/ubuntu/dash/db4/include/"
make -s -j5
```
Run Dash Daemon/QT/Client
----------------------------
```
./src/dashd
./src/dash-qt
./src/dash-cli
```
Last edited:
Yet another reason why vote with numbers is needed.
From the veritas team.
They admitted the deficiency, and their only argument was that Dash has more than 7% growth comparing to the USD!
And again the veritas team said:
Let this damned 10% portion of funds for proposed projects together with this damned 1000 dash collateral for being a masternode to be voted. Let ALL the magic numbers with no theory behind to be voted. This is the solution, the only one!
From the veritas team.
What the core team replied? Nothing!
They admitted the deficiency, and their only argument was that Dash has more than 7% growth comparing to the USD!
And again the veritas team said:
So what is the solution? Vote with numbers of course!
Let this damned 10% portion of funds for proposed projects together with this damned 1000 dash collateral for being a masternode to be voted. Let ALL the magic numbers with no theory behind to be voted. This is the solution, the only one!
Last edited:
From the veritas team.
</vote history>
Would you like to be able to cast votes using numbers and extract the results as an average?
yes 3 vote(s) 10.3%
no 23 vote(s) 79.3%
other 3 vote(s) 10.3%
</vote history>
And how this can be resolved? Voting with numbers of course!
Above they are trying to describe in a glimpse this procedure.
</vote history>
Would you like to be able to cast votes using numbers and extract the results as an average?
yes 3 vote(s) 10.3%
no 23 vote(s) 79.3%
other 3 vote(s) 10.3%
</vote history>
Last edited:
<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 3 vote(s) 10.0%
no 24 vote(s) 80.0%
other 3 vote(s) 10.0%
</vote history>
Would you like to be able to cast votes using numbers and extract the results as an average?
*yes 3 vote(s) 10.0%
no 24 vote(s) 80.0%
other 3 vote(s) 10.0%
</vote history>
Last edited:
<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 3 vote(s) 9.7%
no 25 vote(s) 80.6%
other 3 vote(s) 9.7%
</vote history>
Would you like to be able to cast votes using numbers and extract the results as an average?
*yes 3 vote(s) 9.7%
no 25 vote(s) 80.6%
other 3 vote(s) 9.7%
</vote history>
I'm not sure why this got so many no votes, unless people just really hate demo that much. Anything that adds flexibility to the voting process is a positive for me.
It's like building a car without a steering wheel and asking if you think it would be a good idea to add a steering wheel... Clearly the answer must be no... I mean, who needs to turn anyway?
It's like building a car without a steering wheel and asking if you think it would be a good idea to add a steering wheel... Clearly the answer must be no... I mean, who needs to turn anyway?
Yet this is exactly what the greedy Dash generation of 2014-2016 responded. They wanted a car without a steering wheel. Their stupidity will echoes in eternity.
<vote history>
Would you like to be able to cast votes using numbers and extract the results as an average?
*yes 4 vote(s) 12.1%
no 26 vote(s) 78.8%
other 3 vote(s) 9.1%
</vote history>
I would support any system that i thought would reduce the chance of good proposals being blocked by a minority. Currently the 400 vote gap occasionally feels like too high a barrier for some. We have a system of giving the money to the oroposals with the most votes first, so i see a much bigger downside to deciding not to fund than that associated with deciding to fund. I worry that there may be people voting who are not neccessarily on side.
How do you define a good proposal? A good proposal for who? Good or bad cannot be defined accurately, it is relative. Your wording is unclear. Stop talking about good or bad, nobody knows what this really is. And start talking about majority or minority, because this is the only objective thing that can be counted.
Vote the numbers is a system that respects the minorities, but a minority cannot block a majority proposal. The only think a minority can do is to delay or to diminish the majority number, but it cannot blocked it.
- Status