going to a size-of-wallet voting scheme is plain MEDIEVAL - sure this has been brought up here before, but how about this:
Thanks everyone for the great ideas and discussion about voting, it's what I was hoping for  I agree with the above statement and that's why I proposed what I did. My concept of voting is only based on the American democratic process. So that's why I proposed how I did. I am curious that no one commented about the account restrictions based on blockchain height I mentioned: If a vote was proposed and went public on block height of 45,000 an account would have to have existed for 'X' number of blocks before the block containing the vote (i.e, you have to be 18yrs old to vote in the U.S.), we could take it a bit further and say that that account would also have to NXT in it for a certain amount of blocks before the vote as well (like the 1440 blocks before you can forge). This could surely cut down on the amount of gaming no? This makes a lot of sense on so many levels. Not only would it prevent gaming the system from large holders, but it prevents people from buying large sums of NXT (for a short period) to try to manipulate the vote. The more I think about this approach, the more it grows on me. This is a great idea. A forging account with public key will be able to get one vote. Or as mentioned above, only an account that existed at a particular block height would get to vote on the particular topic. That way you could go back in time and put up a vote for a smaller group of founders, etc... +1 I like the idea. But if you go back to the first block, there aren't anyone else to vote except BCNext or anyone else ? Well haha of course if you go back to the Genesis block But it would an arbitrary number. Need to be an account with a public key for at least the previous 10,000 blocks when the vote block come up. Or whatever..... One idea is that when a voting issue is raised and up for public debate we can mark the block at that time and only accounts "older" than that mark can vote on that issue. Furthermore, I think setting up a vote should cost a certain amount of NXT to avoid spamming. |
|
|
|
going to a size-of-wallet voting scheme is plain MEDIEVAL - sure this has been brought up here before, but how about this:
Thanks everyone for the great ideas and discussion about voting, it's what I was hoping for I agree with the above statement and that's why I proposed what I did. My concept of voting is only based on the American democratic process. So that's why I proposed how I did. I am curious that no one commented about the account restrictions based on blockchain height I mentioned: If a vote was proposed and went public on block height of 45,000 an account would have to have existed for 'X' number of blocks before the block containing the vote (i.e, you have to be 18yrs old to vote in the U.S.), we could take it a bit further and say that that account would also have to NXT in it for a certain amount of blocks before the vote as well (like the 1440 blocks before you can forge). This could surely cut down on the amount of gaming no? This makes a lot of sense on so many levels. Not only would it prevent gaming the system from large holders, but it prevents people from buying large sums of NXT (for a short period) to try to manipulate the vote. The more I think about this approach, the more it grows on me. This is a great idea. A forging account with public key will be able to get one vote. Or as mentioned above, only an account that existed at a particular block height would get to vote on the particular topic. That way you could go back in time and put up a vote for a smaller group of founders, etc... +1 I like the idea. But if you go back to the first block, there aren't anyone else to vote except BCNext or anyone else ? |
|
|
|
...before quiting the project in April.
Hey... if people are freaking out today... I don't even want to think about what will happen when you quit!?!?!  Don't worry. U have Jean-Luc and Klee's team. ImmortalAlex, ricot, jaguar could join the core team at some points. Al least I hope so. |
|
|
|
Cfb can you take a look at this. His solution sounds similar to what we are doing. |
|
|
|
we have discussed this issue on previous on occasions...and i'm sure it will be solved but it's the same problem the internet has....i'm not smart enough to suggest any solutions for this one.
It's a different problem. With the general Internet, when illegal content springs up it can generally be dealt with (speed & mechanisms dependent on the type of content), and the rest of the Internet chugs along just fine. Systems that try to combat that (tor etc) do so with sophisticated techniques, and it's a cat & mouse game against the authorities. Fact is, we are hosting a blockchain that allows arbitrary data to be stored in it, with no mechanism to remove it, and hoping that people won't take advantage of that in a way that harms us. Is that wise? +1 Don't overestimate the load our blockchain can take as we may end up with 10G data file pretty soon. One reason Bitcoin devs don't want to implement any other features because Bitcoin already reaches the 10G blockchain and almost maximum bandwith by doing only transaction processing. So now they decided to be a payment specialist only. When we have asset exchange, plus messenger, voting etc and pyamnet system. We may do 10X the load Bitcoin is taking right now. Need to think ahead. Ok so we can't implement all these features because of blockchain bloat. But didn't we tout these as the advantages and the reason NXT is far ahead of Bitcoin and now the bloat is the reason it won't be implemented? Huh? Just use common logic. Features are good. We love features but don't kid yourself that you can get a fee lunch. Fee lunch? I don't care about fees. It was promised that these features would be implemented with no mention of the blockchain size being a big road block. It's news to me what you just said. Free lunch. The more features, the bigger blockchain. There are tricks to reduce that but the common sense is that if you want to put in a lot of furnitures, your house will necessarily be bigger. now you heard it, don't complain later that no one told you. The fact that the blockchain grows with features is a given. But the fact that this is a such a big road block now is news at least to me. Nowhere before in hundreds of pages was it mentioned that all of a sudden we have a huge problem with the blockchain size. But we did have an emhasis on all of the "nice future features" that we will easily implement. Now I understand this is not feasible in practice. Is that what you're saying? I said need to think ahead |
|
|
|
we have discussed this issue on previous on occasions...and i'm sure it will be solved but it's the same problem the internet has....i'm not smart enough to suggest any solutions for this one.
It's a different problem. With the general Internet, when illegal content springs up it can generally be dealt with (speed & mechanisms dependent on the type of content), and the rest of the Internet chugs along just fine. Systems that try to combat that (tor etc) do so with sophisticated techniques, and it's a cat & mouse game against the authorities. Fact is, we are hosting a blockchain that allows arbitrary data to be stored in it, with no mechanism to remove it, and hoping that people won't take advantage of that in a way that harms us. Is that wise? +1 Don't overestimate the load our blockchain can take as we may end up with 10G data file pretty soon. One reason Bitcoin devs don't want to implement any other features because Bitcoin already reaches the 10G blockchain and almost maximum bandwith by doing only transaction processing. So now they decided to be a payment specialist only. When we have asset exchange, plus messenger, voting etc and pyamnet system. We may do 10X the load Bitcoin is taking right now. Need to think ahead. Ok so we can't implement all these features because of blockchain bloat. But didn't we tout these as the advantages and the reason NXT is far ahead of Bitcoin and now the bloat is the reason it won't be implemented? Huh? Just use common logic. Features are good. We love features but don't kid yourself that you can get a fee lunch. Fee lunch? I don't care about fees. It was promised that these features would be implemented with no mention of the blockchain size being a big road block. It's news to me what you just said. Free lunch. The more features, the bigger blockchain. There are tricks to reduce that but the common sense is that if you want to put in a lot of furnitures, your house will necessarily be bigger. now you heard it, don't complain later that no one told you. |
|
|
|
How many store the message securely in a network which is a permanent recoverable record (if you have the keys) of the messages.
secure and permanent message could be the selling point. edit: lol This a storage function not a communication function. the internet is BOTH STORAGE & COMMUNICATION FUNCTION. How can you sell your product if you don't even know its main functionality ? Don't compare Internet with NXT app, it is borderline stupid. I was not......I think you should take a breather Then don't bring Internet into a conversation about NXT applications. Sorry if you feel i am rude. I am going to go for a breakfast |
|
|
|
How many store the message securely in a network which is a permanent recoverable record (if you have the keys) of the messages.
secure and permanent message could be the selling point. edit: lol This a storage function not a communication function. the internet is BOTH STORAGE & COMMUNICATION FUNCTION. How can you sell your product if you don't even know its main functionality ? Don't compare Internet with NXT app, it is borderline stupid. |
|
|
|
How many store the message securely in a network which is a permanent recoverable record (if you have the keys) of the messages.
secure and permanent message could be the selling point. edit: lol This a storage function not a communication function. |
|
|
|
There are many secure messenger apps out there. Go check them first. I have to tell you that if you want to compete in this sector, you are in a very tough sport.
A lot of smart guys are doing these secure messaging.
I agree there are secure messaging apps, but how secure??? How many store the message securely in a network which is a permanent recoverable record (if you have the keys) of the messages. What you describe is more like a storage function than a communication function. and yes there is an advantage to store contracts on the blockchain. |
|
|
|
So we should concentrate our efforts on an easy-to-use secure communication tool with not so low fees maybe.
I think so. The world is full of messaging tools, but I cannot think of any easily access file where the messages are permanent and verifiable that someone agreed to something or said something, i.e. you can't fake them, delete them, change them, if they are easy to use then people will find uses for such a thing - and this does not need to be cheap. This is more like contract agreements etc. than simple messaging. For these types of things we don't need to lower fee. |
|
|
|
we have discussed this issue on previous on occasions...and i'm sure it will be solved but it's the same problem the internet has....i'm not smart enough to suggest any solutions for this one.
It's a different problem. With the general Internet, when illegal content springs up it can generally be dealt with (speed & mechanisms dependent on the type of content), and the rest of the Internet chugs along just fine. Systems that try to combat that (tor etc) do so with sophisticated techniques, and it's a cat & mouse game against the authorities. Fact is, we are hosting a blockchain that allows arbitrary data to be stored in it, with no mechanism to remove it, and hoping that people won't take advantage of that in a way that harms us. Is that wise? +1 Don't overestimate the load our blockchain can take as we may end up with 10G data file pretty soon. One reason Bitcoin devs don't want to implement any other features because Bitcoin already reaches the 10G blockchain and almost maximum bandwith by doing only transaction processing. So now they decided to be a payment specialist only. When we have asset exchange, plus messenger, voting etc and pyamnet system. We may do 10X the load Bitcoin is taking right now. Need to think ahead. Ok so we can't implement all these features because of blockchain bloat. But didn't we tout these as the advantages and the reason NXT is far ahead of Bitcoin and now the bloat is the reason it won't be implemented? Huh? Just use common logic. Features are good. We love features but don't kid yourself that you can get a fee lunch. |
|
|
|
Illegal content.....that is a problem whether the fee is 1nxt or 10 nxt
True, but the magnitude of the problem may differ. We shouldn't just ignore it and hope it goes away. That's what I am talking about. If there is no solution, all these apps and promotions is a waste of time. should we shut down the internet too With current blockchain and network capacity then yes spamming is a huge issue. But I doubt lowering fee will cause it unless someone plan to attack the network. I send my messages free via whatsapp, skype, yahoo mess, snap chat and a bunch of other apps. You can't compete by lowering the price with NXT messenger. It has to be a special type of message in the blockchain. When the novelty wears off, no one is going to pay a dime to send a conversational message via NXT. But people will pay to send a secure message via NXT so why aim it at mass conversational messaging, if NXT messages are confidential and secure then this is a differentiator that means you can charge more and the volume will be lower. There are many secure messenger apps out there. Go check them first. I have to tell you that if you want to compete in this sector, you are in a very tough sport. A lot of smart guys are doing these secure messaging. |
|
|
|
With current blockchain and network capacity then yes spamming is a huge issue. But I doubt lowering fee will cause it unless someone plan to attack the network. I send my messages free via whatsapp, skype, yahoo mess, snap chat and a bunch of other apps. You can't compete by lowering the price with NXT messenger. It has to be a special type of message in the blockchain.
When the novelty wears off, no one is going to pay a dime to send a conversational message via NXT.
Secure communications seems like a good selling point....as non of the above APP's do that. NOTE: This is an already released feature the genie is out of the bottle.....i;m just arguing to lower the msg fee....thats all. EDIT: That would be foolish to suggest Nxt could compete with whatsapp....but there are a lot of people in this world who would use Nxt for secure communications. Look like whatsapp would be much more secure than NXT's messenger in a foreseeable future. Your messages are always out in the public, inside the blockchain and we don't even have encryption yet. Unless you do something about it first, it won't be a secure communication. |
|
|
|
we have discussed this issue on previous on occasions...and i'm sure it will be solved but it's the same problem the internet has....i'm not smart enough to suggest any solutions for this one.
It's a different problem. With the general Internet, when illegal content springs up it can generally be dealt with (speed & mechanisms dependent on the type of content), and the rest of the Internet chugs along just fine. Systems that try to combat that (tor etc) do so with sophisticated techniques, and it's a cat & mouse game against the authorities. Fact is, we are hosting a blockchain that allows arbitrary data to be stored in it, with no mechanism to remove it, and hoping that people won't take advantage of that in a way that harms us. Is that wise? +1 Don't overestimate the load our blockchain can take as we may end up with 10G data file pretty soon. One reason Bitcoin devs don't want to implement any other features because Bitcoin already reaches the 10G blockchain and almost maximum bandwith by doing only transaction processing. So now they decided to be a payment specialist only. When we have asset exchange, plus messenger, voting etc and pyamnet system. We may do 10X the load Bitcoin is taking right now. Need to think ahead. |
|
|
|
Illegal content.....that is a problem whether the fee is 1nxt or 10 nxt
True, but the magnitude of the problem may differ. We shouldn't just ignore it and hope it goes away. That's what I am talking about. If there is no solution, all these apps and promotions is a waste of time. should we shut down the internet too With current blockchain and network capacity then yes spamming is a huge issue. But I doubt lowering fee will cause it unless someone plan to attack the network. I send my messages free via whatsapp, skype, yahoo mess, snap chat and a bunch of other apps. You can't compete by lowering the price with NXT messenger. It has to be a special type of message in the blockchain. When the novelty wears off, no one is going to pay a dime to send a conversational message via NXT. |
|
|
|
@ CfB
Can we reduce only 1 type of transaction fee (i.e Message Fee) or do we have to reduce all the transaction fee?
Interesting idea. We still would have a nice fee for transactions (so the forgers get something for forging). But what would be the consequences for the network, if we would overload it with thousands of messages per minute? We don't need lower fee now. We need a stable network, a full client and colored coin first. Let's take one step at the time. We can't even transfer aliases yet for God's sake. |
|
|
|
Not to anyone in particular. Could people refrain from posing such blah blah blah ? or are we destined to evolve into a such WOW community ? Please more real works and real thoughts to push NXT ahead instead. Competition would be fierce in this industry and we can't better such player as Ethereum https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=412878.msg4524703#msg4524703 if we are not trying our best. peace, Up I read only every 2nd post. U could do the same. NXT-ers are like guerrilla compared to organized army such as Ethereum, Mastercoin. |
|
|
|
Not to anyone in particular. Could people refrain from posing such blah blah blah ? or are we destined to evolve into a such WOW community ? Please more real works and real thoughts to push NXT ahead instead. Competition would be fierce in this industry and we can't better such player as Ethereum https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=412878.msg4524703#msg4524703 if we are not trying our best. peace, Up |
|
|
|
Edit: Or maybe even, 1 Account = 1 Vote but it costs 1NXT per account to vote.
Hard to say how well that would work but I think charging to vote could be a reasonable idea - another idea that could work would be to enforce some sort of "manual work" (such as solving a Captcha) for each vote (so you might be able to split up your funds into many accounts easily enough but you'd have to spend perhaps hours and hours solving Captchas to *use* those votes). The more cost and effort to vote the less likely people are going to do it multiple times (imagine if you had to run or walk 10km per vote). Yeah, I would say one vote per account with at least 10 Nxt and 1 Alias. It won't work. I personally have 6 accounts with balance greater than 100 and 4 of them have aliases. I like the idea of running 5 miles per vote though. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
