NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information

[allwelder]

41454  11731960900805566730  ‎2014‎年‎1‎月‎15‎日‎ ‎11‎:‎16‎:‎02 
   
  0  0 + 0  0 B 
   
  2  6150261779943579349  90.5 %

Why the target value is smaller than 100%?

[gbeirn]

Cross posted from: https://forums.nxtcrypto.org/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=530&p=2612#p2612

My thoughts on how to count votes.

Personally I think the most democratic way is 1 Account = 1 Vote, regardless of your wealth (amount of NXT). Sure someone could create multiple accounts to have more votes but since it costs NXT to send NXT to other accounts, you couldn't do this for long without going broke.

Imagine I have 10,000 NXT. I can't create 10,000 accounts. At most I could create 5,000. Since if I send 1NXT to 5,000 accounts it costs me 5,000 NXT in transaction fees just to do so. If I want those NXT all back in one account (to increase ability to forge) then I can create even less accounts since I will incur a transaction fee to send NXT from those dummy accounts back to my main account.

This can actually work well early on since it may help to distribute NXT even more.

Another way to prevent the creation of dummy voting accounts would be to have a rule that NXT must remain in an account for a certain number of blocks before a vote to be counted as a valid voting account. Or say for example if a vote comes up at block 45,000 for example, only accounts that have a balance as of block 45,000 are counted for voting.

I think the coolest part about the voting is that we can use the voting system to tweak the voting system as time goes on. We could come up with all sorts of complex algorithms in the future once we see what the NXT ecosystem looks like.

Any ideas?

Edit: Or maybe even, 1 Account = 1 Vote but it costs 1NXT per account to vote.

[pandaisftw]

41454  11731960900805566730  ‎2014‎年‎1‎月‎15‎日‎ ‎11‎:‎16‎:‎02 
   
  0  0 + 0  0 B 
   
  2  6150261779943579349  90.5 %

Why the target value is smaller than 100%?

Variation.

[integrity42]

Ethereum just killed NXT.

Same with all the others.

[pandaisftw]

Cross posted from: https://forums.nxtcrypto.org/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=530&p=2612#p2612

My thoughts on how to count votes.

Personally I think the most democratic way is 1 Account = 1 Vote, regardless of your wealth (amount of NXT). Sure someone could create multiple accounts to have more votes but since it costs NXT to send NXT to other accounts, you couldn't do this for long without going broke.

Imagine I have 10,000 NXT. I can't create 10,000 accounts. At most I could create 5,000. Since if I send 1NXT to 5,000 accounts it costs me 5,000 NXT in transaction fees just to do so. If I want those NXT all back in one account (to increase ability to forge) then I can create even less accounts since I will incur a transaction fee to send NXT from those dummy accounts back to my main account.

This can actually work well early on since it may help to distribute NXT even more.

Another way to prevent the creation of dummy voting accounts would be to have a rule that NXT must remain in an account for a certain number of blocks before a vote to be counted as a valid voting account. Or say for example if a vote comes up at block 45,000 for example, only accounts that have a balance as of block 45,000 are counted for voting.

I think the coolest part about the voting is that we can use the voting system to tweak the voting system as time goes on. We could come up with all sorts of complex algorithms in the future once we see what the NXT ecosystem looks like.

Any ideas?

Edit: Or maybe even, 1 Account = 1 Vote but it costs 1NXT per account to vote.

My only concern with 1 account = 1 vote is that all it does is cause people to spread out their NXT as much as possible. Also, there are only ~14k accounts right now, someone with a large stake only has to spend ~28k NXT to win every single vote. This will result in an account creating arms race to see who can create the most accounts possible so they have the most voting power. I know this idea is meant to help the small guys, but it will in fact hurt them more (since they can't afford to as many transaction fees as large holders can to create a large number of accounts).

[utopianfuture]

Ethereum just killed NXT.

Same with all the others.

Nope, don't think so.

[utopianfuture]

Cross posted from: https://forums.nxtcrypto.org/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=530&p=2612#p2612

My thoughts on how to count votes.

Personally I think the most democratic way is 1 Account = 1 Vote, regardless of your wealth (amount of NXT). Sure someone could create multiple accounts to have more votes but since it costs NXT to send NXT to other accounts, you couldn't do this for long without going broke.

Imagine I have 10,000 NXT. I can't create 10,000 accounts. At most I could create 5,000. Since if I send 1NXT to 5,000 accounts it costs me 5,000 NXT in transaction fees just to do so. If I want those NXT all back in one account (to increase ability to forge) then I can create even less accounts since I will incur a transaction fee to send NXT from those dummy accounts back to my main account.

This can actually work well early on since it may help to distribute NXT even more.

Another way to prevent the creation of dummy voting accounts would be to have a rule that NXT must remain in an account for a certain number of blocks before a vote to be counted as a valid voting account. Or say for example if a vote comes up at block 45,000 for example, only accounts that have a balance as of block 45,000 are counted for voting.

I think the coolest part about the voting is that we can use the voting system to tweak the voting system as time goes on. We could come up with all sorts of complex algorithms in the future once we see what the NXT ecosystem looks like.

Any ideas?

Edit: Or maybe even, 1 Account = 1 Vote but it costs 1NXT per account to vote.

My only concern with 1 account = 1 vote is that all it does is cause people to spread out their NXT as much as possible. Also, there are only ~14k accounts right now, someone with a large stake only has to spend ~28k NXT to win every single vote. This will result in an account creating arms race to see who can create the most accounts possible so they have the most voting power. I know this idea is meant to help the small guys, but it will in fact hurt them more (since they can't afford to as many transaction fees as large holders can to create a large number of accounts).

Good point. 1 account = 1 vote will increase manipulation on important decisions. I would support 1 NXT/ 1 vote, at least in the beginning period. We could add tweaks to reduce the power of big accounts later on.

[dzarmush]

Cross posted from: https://forums.nxtcrypto.org/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=530&p=2612#p2612

My thoughts on how to count votes.

Personally I think the most democratic way is 1 Account = 1 Vote, regardless of your wealth (amount of NXT). Sure someone could create multiple accounts to have more votes but since it costs NXT to send NXT to other accounts, you couldn't do this for long without going broke.

Imagine I have 10,000 NXT. I can't create 10,000 accounts. At most I could create 5,000. Since if I send 1NXT to 5,000 accounts it costs me 5,000 NXT in transaction fees just to do so. If I want those NXT all back in one account (to increase ability to forge) then I can create even less accounts since I will incur a transaction fee to send NXT from those dummy accounts back to my main account.

This can actually work well early on since it may help to distribute NXT even more.

Another way to prevent the creation of dummy voting accounts would be to have a rule that NXT must remain in an account for a certain number of blocks before a vote to be counted as a valid voting account. Or say for example if a vote comes up at block 45,000 for example, only accounts that have a balance as of block 45,000 are counted for voting.

I think the coolest part about the voting is that we can use the voting system to tweak the voting system as time goes on. We could come up with all sorts of complex algorithms in the future once we see what the NXT ecosystem looks like.

Any ideas?

Edit: Or maybe even, 1 Account = 1 Vote but it costs 1NXT per account to vote.

For some people it's not a problem to create 100 000 accounts just for voting. Also I hate the idea 1 person - 1 vote.

I was thinking of doing something like that:
1 Nxt - 1 Vote
100 Nxt - 100 Votes
1000 Nxt - 800 Votes
10 000 Nxt -7000 Votes
100 000 Nxt - 60 000 Votes
1 000 000 Nxt - 500 000 Votes
5 000 000 Nxt - 4 000 000 Votes
10 000 000 Nxt - 6 000 000 Votes

[msin]

Ethereum just killed NXT.

Same with all the others.

A POW inflationary coin, hardly.

[utopianfuture]

Ethereum just killed NXT.

Same with all the others.

A POW inflationary coin, hardly.

So much hype - similar to the way Mastercoin was launched

[CIYAM]

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).

[integrity42]

Ethereum just killed NXT.

Same with all the others.

A POW inflationary coin, hardly.

Actually there is a maximum amount. It just takes longer to mine them all, however there is a limit. Inflation also trends to zero.

[loopgate88]

Ethereum just killed NXT.

Same with all the others.

It's 2013. PoW is no match to PoS. Face it, within PoS there's competition; everything else is just blackberrying its way out of existence.

[msin]

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.

[msin]

Ethereum just killed NXT.

Same with all the others.

A POW inflationary coin, hardly.

Actually there is a maximum amount. It just takes longer to mine them all, however there is a limit. Inflation also trends to zero.

What is the maximum?  I hope Ethereum is successful, alt coins can co-exist, this isn't Highlander.  Also, the name is terrible, and the POW will ultimately kill the project.

[utopianfuture]

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.

[CIYAM]

In terms of voting, I appreciate what you're trying to do with a 1 person == 1 vote, but... well... it just won't work.

I think it could but it does require a bit of "thinking outside of the box" - I could envision some sort of decentralised online *game* which you have to play in order to vote (you only get to vote when you finish the game).

If you limit the time window (and make the game something that might take an hour or so to complete) then I think you'd get close to 1 vote per person (you'll never get it 100% right).

It's really a question of whether a "democracy" is what is wanted or whether instead it should just be the largest stakeholders that make the decisions.

Maybe a better way is to simply *pay* for a vote - so if you want to vote 10K times it costs you 10K NXT (with the funds being used on whatever is being voted for I guess).

[apenzl]

Ehm, sorry but did I miss something? Don't we SPEND nxt to vote?

Say I have 1M NXT, and I just looove to show off and get influence, so I send 1M votes - now I have…… 0 NXT left on my acc?

[msin]

In terms of voting, I appreciate what you're trying to do with a 1 person == 1 vote, but... well... it just won't work.

I think it could but it does require a bit of "thinking outside of the box" - I could envision some sort of decentralised online *game* which you have to play in order to vote (you only get to vote when you finish the game).

If you limit the time window (and make the game something that might take an hour or so to complete) then I think you'd get close to 1 vote per person (you'll never get it 100% right).

It's really a question of whether a "democracy" is what is wanted or whether instead it should just be the largest stakeholders that make the decisions.

Maybe a better way is to simply *pay* for a vote - so if you want to vote 10K times it costs you 10K NXT (with the funds being used on whatever is being voted for I guess).

Yeah, I think in the end it's best if it's 1 Nxt - 1 Vote, keep it simple.

[User705]

Can someone explain in plain terms what this "voting" is for?