Either voting will be truly revolutionizing or it will be a serious threat to Nxt.
Would it be a good to reward the coinage regarding to the voting weight?
voting weight = stake * coinage Sounds right to me. |
|
|
|
This voting math is implemented and 2 people just bought 10.000.000 NXT each.
One of them is keeping all NXT in his one account. Voting power: 100
The other on makes 100 accounts with 100.000 NXT each. Voting Power: 4641
Basically he payed 100 NXT fees, to increase his voting power by 4741%
Does that really sound fair? I think not.
I will try to find a way around this  . I just wanted start the process of developing a mathematical formula for voting. I'm going to continue to move things around and will post updates for input.
+1 we just have to accept that wealthier individuals are going to have more voting power. dont try to fight it. that issue doesnt need to be taken into consideration by the person making the voting system. it needs to be taken in to consideration by the person creating the ballots.
As someone with millions of NXT, I disagree. I think mathematical equations hold the answer to equality. As previously stated, if you try to put limits on how much stake someone can use to vote than a whale will simply break his stake up into multiple accounts. If you try to say that you get 1 vote per account than fraudsters will make a zillion accounts with one nxt each. I think your judgment may be clouded by what you would like to be the case. |
|
|
|
Working on the math behind the voting system. What variables do you think should be included to determine voting power? So far I have (This isn't in any known language, just organized in a way that people should be able to understand) variables that are added to vote weight
account size
account age
Hypothetically let
lastblock ==1400
account creation[0]== 1400
account creation[1]== 700
account creation[2]== 100
accountSize[0]== 1,00,000
accountSize[1]== 500,000
accountSize[2]== 250,000
Let relativeAge = (lastBlock) / (accountCreation) '
therefore : relativeAge[0]= 1
relativeAge[1]= 2
relativeAge[2]=14
Let fairWeight = (accountSize)^(1/3)
therefore : fairWeight[0]= 63
fairWeight[1]= 51
fairWeight[2]=41
votingPower = (relativeAge)*(fairWeight)
votingPower[0] = 63
votingPower[1] = 102
votingPower[2] = 574
I know you guys just want to make Voting not so "top-heavy". But that is no solution. Let's look at this szenario: This voting math is implemented and 2 people just bought 10.000.000 NXT each. One of them is keeping all NXT in his one account. Voting power: 100 The other on makes 100 accounts with 100.000 NXT each. Voting Power: 4641 Basically he payed 100 NXT fees, to increase his voting power by 4741% Does that really sound fair? I think not. +1 we just have to accept that wealthier individuals are going to have more voting power. dont try to fight it. that issue doesnt need to be taken into consideration by the person making the voting system. it needs to be taken in to consideration by the person creating the ballots. |
|
|
|
not much of an exchange. I wouldnt trust them at this point. why wouldnt you trust them? |
|
|
|
So for example you may say: A1 is spend on alice for marking, A2 is spend on bob for marketing, and A3 is spend on charlie for marketing. B1 is spend on nate for development, B2 is spend on frank for development, and B3 is spend on jim for development? Asside from being a little bit sexist, is that something like what you are talking about?
Yes - this is the basic idea - so people are voting whether to spend on "marketing" or "development" but who will actually *get* the funds for either choice would be a random choice of the winning "side" (the randomness could be based upon timestamps or something else blockchain related such as hashes). So if you are "Alice" then spending a huge amount of NXT may guarantee that A wins the vote but it doesn't at all guarantee that *you* win the vote. ill have to think about it for a bit. im certain it would work if you could hide how much was being donated to each address. but if that information was public and being monitored by the participants in real time fraud may still creep its way in no matter how large x was. |
|
|
|
on second thought you would still need to craft the incentives right either way because a gamer could in theory purchase votes from stakeholders.
But once again if the vote is only for A or B rather than A1..x and B1..x then buying those votes are no better than using your own NXT. The idea being that the choice of A1...x or B1...x would be entirely *random* (not a specific choice) so the specific choice that has been voted on is just the general idea of either A or B. Hope this makes sense (yes corruption could still happen if all the A's or B's colluded and that would have to be another issue to be considered). I thought I understood what you were saying before. now i am not so certain  So for example you may say: A1 is spend on alice for marking, A2 is spend on bob for marketing, and A3 is spend on charlie for marketing. B1 is spend on nate for development, B2 is spend on frank for development, and B3 is spend on jim for development? Asside from being a little bit sexist, is that something like what you are talking about? |
|
|
|
My basic argument is just that, With the idea of using tokens + a flat fee there is little to no risk and no need for the creator of the ballot to understand economic thought processes.
I like your thought process and this is somewhat where I am headed - I think if you ensure that what you are voting for itself is not easily gamed (and to my thinking the best approach would be to introduce a "random" aspect so say "A1..A5" instead of just A and "B1..B5" instead of just B where A and B are polemic ideas but 1..5 are different variations thereof) then people can just vote for A or B (not really caring whether 1..5 is implemented as long as it is an A or a B) then it becomes harder for each A and B *player* to game the system by spending more. on second thought you would still need to craft the incentives right either way because a gamer could in theory purchase votes from stakeholders. |
|
|
|
There would be a trade off here. The more you try to mitigate ignorant voting the more risk you have of corruption. It would probably be best to set the fee pretty low because in most cases ignorance cancels with ignorance on the opposite side of the issue.
I agree that the amount to be paid should not need to be more than 1 NXT but I also think that if the total amounts are to be redistributed evenly then someone throwing in a bunch of NXT basically is redistributing their stake as much as influencing the outcome (and if the outcome has only a % chance of directly benefiting them then unlikely they are going to pump that much into it). This would be a very good thing IF you could have some reasonable guarantee of this part (and if the outcome has only a % chance of directly benefiting them then unlikely they are going to pump that much into it). So take as an abstract example, just for the sake of thought experiment, this question up for voting. Should SuperScammer1337 be payed 1 million nxt out of the unclaimed 9million nxt fund for "promotional" use. Send nxt to address 1 to vote yes, and address 2 to vote no. In this example its highly unlikely that the community would outvote SuperScammer1337 in this issue. In economics this is called the problem of "concentrated benefits and diffuse costs". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice_theory Now it would be wrong to say that this problem couldnt be avoided. If you have 10 different causes on the ballot than it is unlikely that someone would take the risk of trying to purchase his own victory. The point is that we would need someone with a solid understanding of economics, someone who knows how to think like an economist, to run the voting process. My basic argument is just that, With the idea of using tokens + a flat fee there is little to no risk and no need for the creator of the ballot to understand economic thought processes. |
|
|
|
Probably best to have people vote with tokens and give their votes weight proportional to the stake. The advantage here is that whales will care more about the good of the network than profiting off some small time scam. So we can almost certainly count on the whales to vote with everyones best interest at heart.
If you only have say a 1/4 chance of getting the bounty *despite* your investment then would you still take that risk? Maybe not but before we get into an involved discussion about risks and crafting proper incentives, let me ask what is the advantage? If the advantage is to help mitigate the problem of people voting on things they are ignorant about than i think that maybe the best way to deal with that would be a flat rate fee for submitting a token. Then we have only voters who legitimately care and no concern about people gaming the system. There would be a trade off here. The more you try to mitigate ignorant voting the more risk you have of corruption. It would probably be best to set the fee pretty low because in most cases ignorance cancels with ignorance on the opposite side of the issue. |
|
|
|
i strongly support this. best idea yet.
I support it also although I actually would like to see people have to *pay* to vote (as I don't this has really been tried before and could be an interesting experiment). Think about it - you can "rig" an outcome by burning up your NXT but how many times can you afford to do that? Perhaps also rather than just having the NXT being used for such a poll being fed back as fees (which an AM approach would do) why not have the accounts be used for something (but not for what they represent so they can't send themselves money to use). The thing is i think you could afford to do it a great many times if you profited on each exploitation. So if you could spend 10,000 nxt to have 20,000 payed to you, for example out of the 9million unclaimed fund, then you could use that pay out to do it again, and again, and again. Probably best to have people vote with tokens and give their votes weight proportional to the stake. The advantage here is that whales will care more about the good of the network than profiting off some small time scam. So we can almost certainly count on the whales to vote with everyones best interest at heart. |
|
|
|
What if we just make a simple site, where you can post an issue to vote.
Then people can vote by using the authorization token.
They addresses are checked for age and maybe some balance threshold and added for everyone to see, so it can be transparent.
It won't be perfect, but will be hell of a lot better than forum polls.
Anyone up to it?
i strongly support this. best idea yet. |
|
|
|
I would be very happy if you can devise a better way that actually works.
As suggested by Anon why not just set of 4 Nxt accounts and let people vote with their NXT (it is a PoS system after all)? The dangerous incentives would have to be stepped around very very carefully. Imagine a situation where someone spent 10,000 nxt to vote for having 20,000 nxt spent on his "marketing" campaign and then just disappeared. With that said it may still be the best way. |
|
|
|
A bitcointalk poll? Really? Is this a test to see who has the most bitcointalk alt accounts? i have a better idea. ill make 4 nxt accounts. 1 for each option. which ever receives the most nxt wins the poll! |
|
|
|
congrats.. i think you should contact coinmarketcap  i actually lold, literally |
|
|
|
just sent 0.06 BTC to poloneix.com will report here to keep people updated with my experience at a glance it looks like poloneix is going to be a dgex killer how did you do that? I can't find a BTC deposit address. I only see NXT address. if you go to balances in the btc pane where you see withdrawals. Above that there will be a deposit address, near the top of the pane. |
|
|
|
just sent 0.06 BTC to poloneix.com will report here to keep people updated with my experience at a glance it looks like poloneix is going to be a dgex killer Bter is the DGEX killer. i have heard that bter has very restrictive withdrawal limits |
|
|
|
I'm not the least bit surprised at this. The worst part of it, is that they are still updating the site and are selling tickets. So I would definitely call it a scam, because there is no way they will ever be able to book Science Park just a few months in advance. Pity. Hopefully the bitcoinfoundation conference will turn out to be legit. Having acquired over 10,000 Nxt now, I am willing to do a video conference from the Maledives, too, though. Any whales reading this: give me and Damelon lots more NXT. We deserve it, tho' I think Damelon deserves it more: http://www.nxtcoins.nl/ how many nxt does one have to have inorder to be a whale? |
|
|
|
just sent 0.06 BTC to poloneix.com will report here to keep people updated with my experience at a glance it looks like poloneix is going to be a dgex killer |
|
|
|
|
my first impression is that this service is going to be a dgex murderer. much slicker interface. automatically executed market orders. automated withdrawal. lower fees. i just hope you are a good honest person. will post some orders to help you get started even though i dont really want to buy or sell.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
