Re: [Demexp-dev] Re: How to handle protocol modifications. Delegation.

[Frederic Lehobey]

Hi,

On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 07:03:45PM +0200, ketty wrote:
> On 10/16/06, David MENTRE <address@hidden> wrote:

> BTW, I've seen that you(?) have made an interesting proposal: "Do not
> >delegate on voting server, just publish public positions". I like it
> >because it would simplify both the server and the protocol. And this
> >approach is much more scalable (the client is doing the hard work).

> It was not me, and i don't really what is meant by publishing public
> positions. Or.. It means users has the choice to make publicly visible
> votes? How would an external party use the information to realize
> delegation? What stops a user from both voting anonymously and delegating
> its vote?

I hope I am not off-topic. The idea is that you have two votes on
every question:

  - your vote (private and secret) that weights 1

  - your vote as delegate (public) that weights 0 + the number of
people delegating to you on this question.

Your private vote and delegate vote might obviously be different, but
you might also delegate you private vote to your delegate one (but
nobody will know you have done so).

Delegation is transitive.

You do not have to vote as delegate on every question.

An other way to see it (algorithmically) is: for one question, resolve
recursively the public votes if you delegate the question and paste
the result in your private vote (but you have to recompute this every
time something changes in the delegation chain).

Experimentally,
Frédéric