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 ? |
|
|
|
Are you nut? Committee members will be voted by the community. The pay issue could also be voted by the community. But I would say that it is very likely to be a job without pay. That is my guess. I am not going to force this issue on anyone.
I wont waste more energy on this discussion, especially as you are backtracking and not takng responsibility of what you had already said regarding "COMMITTEE MEMBERS WILL NOT BE PAID" and so on. And "I am here before you" bs I am not a native English speaker. So perhaps you get me wrong. But in any case, never consider my saying a representative of nxt community, anything is just my opinion. You need to reconsider your manner. You have been very rude to me who is actively working for the benefit of nxt. That attitude would not serve you well. |
|
|
|
I can code a client by the end of today for macs.
Ok. Let me check my schedule... 20th - Implement mining in Lakshmi 21st - Test JS-implementations of NRS crypto algo, deploy NRS with Asset Exchange to the testnet 22nd - Resolve some issues assigned to me in Jira 23rd - Implement transaction handling in Lakshmi 24th - Review Account Control code 25th - Fix bugs in Account Control code 26th - Day-off Well, I could do VS review on 26th, then bug fixes and testing... Yesssss - can't wait until 21st. I want to test the asset exchange. Would be fun enough to forget all the voting and funding discussion for a while. |
|
|
|
That is buying votes, imho.
Okay - I don't think it is exactly that (as generally buying votes is done because you are pretty sure you will recoup the cost from the outcome). If you are voting on A vs. B then both A and B might try to "buy" votes (and each has a 50% chance of presumably recouping their costs) but if you are actually voting in a way that neither A nor B can have any more than a 10% chance of winning (no matter how much they spend) then they are far less likely to even bother. So you agree that my poll here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=423241.0 actually work ? because it seems to me no one has a chance of winning anything in this vote. |
|
|
|
Well some people just doesn't like the idea that some rich guys can buy their votes. That's enough of a reason for someone not joining the community.
I wasn't talking about "buying votes" in the sense that someone is paying you to vote the way they want. I am talking about a bigger PoS holder relinquishing some of their stake (to all the other voters equally) to affect the outcome of a vote, however, understand that if they have no guaranteed way of actually benefiting from this, and if it costs them a fair % of their stake to do so do you really think that this is so likely to happen? That is buying votes, imho. |
|
|
|
Are you guys planning to make decisions regarding the continued development of this software through a voting system?
BCNext, Luc, CfB make decision on technical developments. The urgent issue needs to be worked on is the deployment of the common fund and the funding committee . Go here to read more https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=423241.0 |
|
|
|
We are building a community here not a club of big stake holders. And if the small acc holders are leaving NXT, there won't be any money to support big-rich-stake holders.
If the rich stake holders are "paying" the smaller stake holders in order to "get their way" then aren't the smaller stake holders becoming bigger stake holders? In PoS what matters is your *stake* so I think anything that helps increase small holders stake can't be a bad thing. BTW - I am in no way a "big stake holder" so don't think that I am thinking about this "as a whale". Well some people just doesn't like the idea that some rich guys can buy their votes. That's enough of a reason for someone not joining the community. |
|
|
|
how can we make sure only Nxters are voting?
Edit: Account numbers as passwords to the site.
If you have a valid account, you're a nexter by definition. No need for any passwords. Authorization token covers everything. I prefer a separate voting site to using AM function. No need to bloat the blockchain and we can incorporate the voting site into the clients. |
|
|
|
The issue of voting have been discussed at length before. This type of voting is too much the rich biased for my taste.
If nxt system develops in that tendency, we are not going to survive in the open source community. Someone will just fork nxt codes and make it more egalitarian. Bad idea I would say. We have to let smaller accounts having a say.
I think if the votes resulted in better distribution of funds from the bigger stake holders then that could only be a good thing in the long term and if the large stake holders are stupid enough to vote for destructive things then they will have ended up destroying their own wealth in the process. It doesn't matter big holders are wise or stupid. It is a matter of fair representation. Smaller acc holders could leave NXT for a fork if their voice cannot be heard and feel their votes do not matter. We are building a community here not a club of big stake holders. And if the small acc holders are leaving NXT, there won't be any money to support big-rich-stake holders. |
|
|
|
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.
I agree 100%. See my above post  . We should vote based on account only but there would be qualifications for eligible accounts: 1. seniority of accounts - have to be created before 1000 block for example 2. have a certain amount of NXT such as 1000. Let me emphasize again: we can't have a rich-biased system in the open source community. Not going to survive. |
|
|
|
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. The issue of voting have been discussed at length before. This type of voting is too much the rich biased for my taste. If nxt system develops in that tendency, we are not going to survive in the open source community. Someone will just fork nxt codes and make it more egalitarian. Bad idea I would say. We have to let smaller accounts having a say. |
|
|
|
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. And it can even be made simpler if we also post links to forum posts or wiki articles with nice formatting and more info. So just a short text field and URL are needed. If nobody is up to it, I can probably do it, I already have NRS/database on the server and worked with API. Could we have a deadline ? Let's make it work. Someone registers nxtvote. |
|
|
|
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?
Great idea. Let's try that as long as we have a way to gather the consensus. |
|
|
|
|
Are you nut? Committee members will be voted by the community. The pay issue could also be voted by the community. But I would say that it is very likely to be a job without pay. That is my guess. I am not going to force this issue on anyone.
|
|
|
|
Others alternatives are too time consuming. There is no clear motive for anyone to rig this poll. If there is a motive to rig the poll to benefit someone, we will find a different way of doing it.
Anyone with an agenda in regards to Nxt could well have motive and as I mentioned: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=423995.0;topicseen means that you can create as many accounts to vote as you like right now. So what does the poll actually achieve when you have absolutely no way to know whether it is in anyway representative of Nxt stakeholders? All polls should be held at NxtCrytpo.org forum. Then make a poll there. I will vote. What is the point of having two polls at this point. Moving forward lets just post the polls at the NxtCrypto forum, then we would at least avoid allowing any BTT member to vote on our subjects. Nextcoin users would probably oppose your idea. And they outnumber nxtcryoto users. |
|
|
|
A bitcointalk poll? Really? Is this a test to see who has the most bitcointalk alt accounts? Just to be clear this poll is linked to the first page of both nextcoin and nxtcrypto forums. I also frequently update it here. I doubt anyone except NXTers would care for the poll. You may have other opinion. Let try that as well. |
|
|
|
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)? Great idea. Let anon do it and see the results. Maybe it would be the same. |
|
|
|
Others alternatives are too time consuming. There is no clear motive for anyone to rig this poll. If there is a motive to rig the poll to benefit someone, we will find a different way of doing it.
Anyone with an agenda in regards to Nxt could well have motive and as I mentioned: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=423995.0;topicseen means that you can create as many accounts to vote as you like right now. So what does the poll actually achieve when you have absolutely no way to know whether it is in anyway representative of Nxt stakeholders? All polls should be held at NxtCrytpo.org forum. Then make a poll there. I will vote. |
|
|
|
Others alternatives are too time consuming. There is no clear motive for anyone to rig this poll. If there is a motive to rig the poll to benefit someone, we will find a different way of doing it.
Anyone with an agenda in regards to Nxt could well have motive and as I mentioned: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=423995.0;topicseen means that you can create as many accounts to vote as you like right now. So what does the poll actually achieve when you have absolutely no way to know whether it is in anyway representative of Nxt stakeholders? (i.e. why even bother with it - wouldn't it be better to instead just have people cast their vote as a post that includes their account name and reject any new accounts?) Then make a post. You can copy all of my content there as well. Let's see if we have a different results. |
|
|
|
Others alternatives are too time consuming. There is no clear motive for anyone to rig this poll. If there is a motive to rig the poll to benefit someone, we will find a different way of doing it.
Anyone with an agenda in regards to Nxt could well have motive and as I mentioned: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=423995.0;topicseen means that you can create as many accounts to vote as you like right now. So what does the poll actually achieve when you have absolutely no way to know whether it is in anyway representative of Nxt stakeholders? If you have another better way of doing it. I would totally support it. The idea is to gather the community concensus and then move forward with a plan to make things happen. I would be very happy if you can devise a better way that actually works. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
