[bsip13] initial

README.md

@@ -23,4 +23,5 @@ Number             | Title                              | Owner          | Type
 [9](bsip-0009.md)  | Benefit Society                    | Fabian Schuh   | Protocol       | Draft
 [10](bsip-0010.md) | Percentage-based transfer fee solution based on CER | Jakub Zarembinski | Protocol       | Draft
 11                 | On Demand Voting                   | Daniel Larmier | Protocol       | Draft
-12                 | Hardfork Precdure Proposal         | Fabian Schuh   | Informational       | Draft
+12                 | Hardfork Precdure Proposal         | Fabian Schuh   | Informational  | Draft
+[13](bsip-0013.md) | Disable negative voting on workers | Daniel Larimer | Protocol       | Draft

bsip-0013.md

@@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
+    BSIP: 13
+    Title: Disable negative voting on workers
+    Authors: Daniel Larimer <dan@cryptonomex.com>
+    Status: Draft
+    Type: Protocol
+    Created: 2015-03-09
+    Discussion: https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/607
+                https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/565
+
+# Abstract
+
+This proposal fixes a potential attack vector that might be exploited by rich shareholders that hold more collective voting power than the last approved worker (usually a refund/burn worker).
+
+# Motivation
+
+A whale of a group of whales can take funds from the reserve pool by creating a worker and instantly approve it with his stake. Shareholders and proxies can disapprove the new worker but only have a small time-window before the attacker makes a profit.
+
+# Rational
+
+Pro-active downvoting is a losing proposition. An attacker can create 1000 workers and the network will not allow you to down-vote so many workers. The only real solution is to *upvote* refund workers or removing DOWNVOTING is the actual solution to this attack.
+
+Since upvoting of refund workers results in a higher barrier of entry for new legit workers, the solution proposed here is to remove down voting entirely.
+
+Furthermore, a negative vote is equivalent with upvoting all alternatives and results in slightly narrower gaps between votes. It compares pretty will with comparing -1 with +1 (currently) and 0 with +1 as in this proposal.
+
+# Specifications
+
+This proposal could be implemented by removing the ability to cast negative votes or by not taking negative votes into consideration during vote counting in the maintenance interval.
+
+# Copyright
+
+This document is placed in the public domain.