New question for NXTarea.com planned:What do you want to as our next feature? Currently I'm developing a relative big service which uses Arbitrary Messages. This service will get it's own domain and website. In a few days I'm finished with this service and I can check how the feedback is. (If it's positive I can work on it for many months more.  ) But I also want to make NXTarea.com big thus I need/want to integrate new features. I have the following ideas: - Blockchain Explorer - Online Wallet (which needs a Blockchain Explorer also  ) I originally wanted to make a few small games which uses NXT. I registered NXT777.com for this purpose. But I have to postpone this plan, because of some legally issues with Germany.. :/ If you have other ideas for NXTarea.com just let me know!  I want LocalNXT. Can someone develop it ? We would ask for a bounty on it. |
|
|
|
Good Morrrrrnin' Central Eurrrope!
Maybe someone from the developer / GUI developer side can point out requirements for GUI clients to me?!
I am working on putting the API into a PyQt4 client, but what is considered the most urgent by the community? What are the use cases?
I know that ppl are waiting for a messaging GUI client - what does it have to do?
What nxt network info is required to be updated regularly, ie blocks/transactions/peers?
Are there any bounties left? I came relatively late to nxt, and I'd like to earn some!
I know about the Nxt full feature clients - progress tracking thread and I'll cross post this MSG there, but that thread is almost dead it seems, and this thread is so swamped with general discussion, it
really seems difficult to get specific things sorted out here ...
HEADS UP NXT
this thread is not dead !!! Let me know what you have done and I will add it to the first page. |
|
|
|
W have a new client ClieNXT (see in the front page). Test his works out and give him a feedback. NXT eco-system is growing. Such WOW  |
|
|
|
Announcementhttp://holms.cloudapp.net:6874/ hosts test version of NRS with enabled Asset Exchange. U can play with APIs here. PM me if u find any bugs, plz. NB: Don't use ur real account on the testnet. If u need some test coins then ask Klee for that, he is supposed to send the coin coz this server is provided by him me to send u some coins. Thanks! My ETA for Asset Exchange implementation is mid February. marcus03, that is great. We need a competitive product besides Nexern's client. Also remember that we have another bounty on the client development https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=412138.0 |
|
|
|
Hey guys i have Adam Levine's nxt account number . This guy is about as big as they come in the crypto-currency world. you should all send him some donations imo. 2976219914929693803 too bad klee isn't on. i bet his donation would be epic. How do we know that is him ? Thanks Anon. You are great. These guys are finally paying attention. well i did offer him 25,000NXT. so its not too surprising that he would make a wallet. I am going to send him some tips too. But for the amount you sent him, that is why we should have the common funding system working. |
|
|
|
Hey guys i have Adam Levine's nxt account number . This guy is about as big as they come in the crypto-currency world. you should all send him some donations imo. 2976219914929693803 too bad klee isn't on. i bet his donation would be epic. How do we know that is him ? Thanks Anon. You are great. These guys are finally paying attention. |
|
|
|
Hey guys i have Adam Levine's nxt account number . This guy is about as big as they come in the crypto-currency world. you should all send him some donations imo. 2976219914929693803 too bad klee isn't on. i bet his donation would be epic. How do we know that is him ? |
|
|
|
Yes, my approach lessens the voting weight of accounts that share similar voting patters. I posted a walkthrough of the methodology a while ago but I guess it flew over people's heads.
votingweight = ( 1 / similarity ) ^ (4/3) * (accountbalance)^(1/3) * (accountage)^2 (timesvoted)^(3/2)
or something along these lines. "similarity" increases as accounts make the same voting choices as other accounts.
timesvoted= amount of times that account number has voted
timesvoted prevents people from creating additional accounts to circumvent the similarity variable
Similarity is very easily defeated by voting randomly on issues which doesn't concern the real voter. You're welcome to try and solve this enigma with me . Realistically, it would be such a phenomenal pain in the ass to game the system that I doubt anyone would try. Real world voting system is also far from perfect. So let's be constructive and test the system and improve it gradually. We did many polls before such as rewards, logo etc., which can be subject to multiple type of manipulation. But then no one had any complaint about the result and we can move on to other things. Here is one of the poll I did earlier https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=423241.0 and the result looks pretty legit to me. You are welcome to vote there or manipulate it if you like. It should be clear that the poll is not authoritative but we can still use it as an anchor to move forward if no one has a strong objections. If we want to get things done, we should do things pragmatically. I would like to see coolmist's system being tested in a complete form to see how it differs to simple poll results. |
|
|
|
Nothing wrong with that but I was proposing that we set-up a full voting system, to test out various voting concepts, such as 1NXT=1vote or 1 account= 1 vote before applying the knowledge gained there to the full VS, when it gets implemented.
Is the VS actually going to be up and running in one week?
And coming back to the point of this whole debate: how are votes going to be counted?
BTW>>>>NXT 2 the moon, looks like its about to hit the magic 0.000100000 on DGEX
I'm setting up my version in PHP, I can host it on a server that I use for testing projects. The 1nxt=1 vote and 1 account = 1 vote would be really easy to code as well. Let's do it. Too much talk already. We should try different approaches and see which one is best, imho. But obviously nothing will satisfy all people. So let's go with something workable for the majority. |
|
|
|
We are derailing from our goal.
If the voting system leads to this kinds of reactions and discussions in the community we have to set it aside till emotions calmed down.
Many of us our angry and with reason but not all founders have left us alone in the cold, we all know which ones where always there to support the community.
This is of importance to take into account and try to understand why people react like utopianfuture and many others
Not all wounds are healed. Give it some more time. We don’t have to punish the good with the bad.
Let us focus on the upcoming client and promotion campaigns for that, we pick the voting back up later when NXT is 10$
Pin
Hey I am pretty calm but at some point I had to make some forceful statements. Some people mistakenly thought we are Google with a secret algorithm that can be kept from the eyes of the public forever. But it is not the case here as we are in an open source community. Maybe BCNext would try to delay the whole source code as far as he can. But more likely is that the source codes will be out in 3 months or 6 month at the latest. Now let's say Litecoin was born only 6 months apart of Bitcoin, which one do you think would win ? You can't prevent forks and I would say that's about as sure as any sure thing in this world. Now coming back to my earlier statement about me making a fork, well I won't be able to make one until it is as easy as making a clone in coingen. So you probably won't need to worry about me. But you would need to face that reality. Someone with good technical capability would come around and make a fork that can approach NXT's technical capability; probably not FrictionlessCoin but someone else will. Please dont let people see NXT as rich guy club. NXT should be a network for free people, for decentralization, for community involvement and against corrupted centralized governments. That image is everything. That is something an average user could aspire for. It could make NXT to be a sustainable movement as Bitcoin is. Voting issue is about a core feature of NXT as any other important features. |
|
|
|
Hey we are back on the voting thing again I see.
My proposal (again): 1 Account = 1 Vote. I don't think it can be done based on account balance. No way can that be fair.
Someone wants to create multiple accounts.....so what....let them. It will cost them and spread money to others.
Voting requirements: Account must have existed in the blockchain for 'n' of blocks before vote was initiated. Account must be a non-zero balance. (Will help cut down on multiple accounts).
Simple and quick. Could be implemented now, a website could even do it using the blockchain info until we get the VS inside NXT.
I'm honestly fine with this. One account = one vote. It's not going to prevent people from making 8,000 accounts, but that will be a lot of time invested for them if each account has to be funded. This is flawed and can be massively manipulated How so? Copy and paste what mistafreeze wrote. Individuals with resources and a little determination easily flips this system on its head. please read my reasoning here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=345619.msg4626824#msg4626824The worst of account based voting manipulation can do it to approach stake based voting. |
|
|
|
I am not going to do anything until all open sources are out.
I could give u all sources right now, this won't help. U have to hire a good cryptographer or use another crypto algo. Or rewrite the source code. I am too lazy for all of that. Are you making something like coingen or not ? |
|
|
|
Well just let me be direct here. If you guys want to keep the rich-based voting and makes NXT rich guys club. I am going to make a fork as soon as I can. It is open source community after all. I already have a thread going here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=422129.0 and I have several million NXT in funding. Someone is going to do it anyway so I will do it first when my millions of NXT still have some values. Err... U shouldn't do it, there r a few traps left for guys who want to start a fork with another genesis block. At least make sure that noone puts real money into ur coin if u don't want to be accused as a scammer. I am not going to do anything until all open sources are out. |
|
|
|
+1 we just have to accept that wealthier individuals are going to have more voting power. dont try to fight it. No we don't. Why do we have to accept it?? It can just as easily be implemented without costs, please explain why does a vote has to be paid by the voters. (honest question, not trolling) The only reason that makes sense to me is that we are actively trying to make people NOT vote
Yes thats exactly right. Not everyone should vote about everything. Someone who doesnt understand anything about the protocol should not be voting on issues relating to changes to the protocol. By making voting free people vote because they have no reason not to and you get ignorant voters voting on issues they know nothing about. by adding a cost people will only vote on something they actually care about which will tend to be things that they actually KNOW something about. But then, if not everyone is supposed to vote, why have the vote, and the poll, and the community outreach in the first place? If not everyone should vote, we don't need a voting mechanism at all. If you're going to cherry pick who should and should not vote then its not decentralized or democratic or even useful to have the mechanism. You may as well do personal interviews on a case by case basis, lol. Those with the most stake should have the most weight in there votes as they have the most to lose. Plain and simple. Any attempts to craft a system where the stake is not the basis for voting weight will just be "abused" and have the same outcome and in fact I view this as less fair anyways. If you want to make technical changes to the network that a large holder may not understand then it is your job to educate them along with stakeholders of any size so they can make an informed decision. Well just let me be direct here. If you guys want to keep the rich-based voting and makes NXT rich guys club. I am going to make a fork as soon as I can. It is open source community after all. I already have a thread going here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=422129.0 and I have several million NXT in funding. Someone is going to do it anyway so I will do it first when my millions of NXT still have some values. Somehow I think we are getting off track in the discussion here. The way I read it is that you want voters who actually care about the issues that are voted upon. The discussion revolves on how to make that happen. I couldn't care less if that meant that everyone had equal opportunities to vote. The issue seems to be you want interest, and not "shit and giggles" votes, as that basically renders the voting system unusuable. The fact that big stakeholders happen to be the ones with the most to lose just means that. It's a tautological statement: "I have a lot, so can lose a lot. Therefore I have a big interest in any vote". The part that is missing, I think, is that we fail to involve the smaller stakes at this moment. If we say that a small stakeholder has less to lose and is thus less involved, we miss an important aspect of the whole equation, which is community. So, how to involve, appreciate the smaller stakes in such a system? It would be great if everyone has an intrinsic motivation, but in my experience, that is just not the case in real life, mostly. Edit: what am I missing? I couldn't care less about these calculations. I care about the idea NXT represents and that would make NXT a success or not. Either you want to present NXT as a rich guy's club with some kind of superior technology or you want to present NXT as a network/ movement for free people, for decentralization and against all power government. The first option is not going to work for long. Because as I said we are in open source community. Think about bitcoin. Do you really think bitcoin succeed because it has a superior technology ? |
|
|
|
So there should be votes, but not all are meant to vote.
The ones that are meant to vote, are not the ones with the knowledge on the subject being voted, but the ones with the big wallet.
That is a sound plan to some..
i am coming to the conclusion that a lot of people are reading "stakeholder" and think of "shareholder"...
This is not a corporation.
Why don't we try to find solutions as a community and not as a Board of Trustees?
These people are so short-sighted. It is open source software for GOD's sake. You are not holding APPLE stocks. If you guys make NXT a rich guy club, then you are killing NXT the chance to be a real social movement. Unless you can protect the software indefinitely. Think about it. |
|
|
|
|
YEAH. We are going to make it work.
Show your love to NEM.
|
|
|
|
Besides, from a logical point of view a person who owns a lot of NXT deserves to have "more of a say" in any voting mechanism. Can you logically elaborate on that ?? It sounds completely irrational and feudal to me. so 10th Century.. Why does a whale have more saying than a tuna? Are they not swimming in the same waters? Yes my explanation is in the part of my sentence you cut off: Besides, from a logical point of view a person who owns a lot of NXT deserves to have "more of a say" in any voting mechanism since the outcome will affect his holding more than someone who owns 100NXT. That is not an explanation, that is your point of view. please explain why does a bigger wallet has to have more saying than a small wallet. because it does NOT make sence to make it otherwise. There will always be an incentive to just split your holdings to the optimal size to increase your voting power then.... I already explained here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=345619.msg4627039#msg4627039 |
|
|
|
+1 we just have to accept that wealthier individuals are going to have more voting power. dont try to fight it. No we don't. Why do we have to accept it?? It can just as easily be implemented without costs, please explain why does a vote has to be paid by the voters. (honest question, not trolling) The only reason that makes sense to me is that we are actively trying to make people NOT vote
Yes thats exactly right. Not everyone should vote about everything. Someone who doesnt understand anything about the protocol should not be voting on issues relating to changes to the protocol. By making voting free people vote because they have no reason not to and you get ignorant voters voting on issues they know nothing about. by adding a cost people will only vote on something they actually care about which will tend to be things that they actually KNOW something about. But then, if not everyone is supposed to vote, why have the vote, and the poll, and the community outreach in the first place? If not everyone should vote, we don't need a voting mechanism at all. If you're going to cherry pick who should and should not vote then its not decentralized or democratic or even useful to have the mechanism. You may as well do personal interviews on a case by case basis, lol. Those with the most stake should have the most weight in there votes as they have the most to lose. Plain and simple. Any attempts to craft a system where the stake is not the basis for voting weight will just be "abused" and have the same outcome and in fact I view this as less fair anyways. If you want to make technical changes to the network that a large holder may not understand then it is your job to educate them along with stakeholders of any size so they can make an informed decision. Well just let me be direct here. If you guys want to keep the rich-based voting and makes NXT rich guys club. I am going to make a fork as soon as I can. It is open source community after all. I already have a thread going here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=422129.0 and I have several million NXT in funding. Someone is going to do it anyway so I will do it first when my millions of NXT still have some values. |
|
|
|
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. The other 10.000.000 could do the same so both has a fair chance. In game theory framework you arrive at a type of Prisoner's Dilemma game. The equilibrium is that both will try to divide the number of acct to the maximum and get an equal vote. If you add time and labor expense to the activity of acct division, then the equllibrium is that they both try to divide the number of acct to the maximum where the benefit of winning the vote = the time and labor expense. Now since here we are talking about a community of >15000 accts instead of two person game. Let's see what happen when a big acc holder try to game the system and win the vote under acct based voting system. So the idea is that the big acct holder will try to make as many small accts as possible to have more votes. The more NXT the acc have, the more accs that the big stake holder can make. So in that situation we approach the system of the votes based on the number of NXT, or in other work we approach the system of voting based on stake. It does not seem so bad for proponents of stake-based voting to me. And for acc- based voting proponents I can say the worst we could have is for the big stake holders to turn the voting into a stake-based one. But it would be costly for big stake holders to do that. Sound good to me. Any flaws in this reasoning ? or should we focus on building the criterion of account eligibility instead ? Please review my reasoning above. I am for account based voting, but we have to build account eligibility criterion. If we follow stake-based voting, we are not going to survive the open source community. Rich-based voting is a dead sentence for community building and without community building you are not going to survive the open source community. There are already NXT forks out there welcoming disfranchised NXT small acc owners. You can't prevent others copying NXT codes and make forks. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
