NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information

[Anon136]

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.

[mr_random]

+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.

Why so pessimistic? What if we add some sort of captcha that will make sure one person can't vote a ridiculous number of times?

With growing user base it will make less and less sense to try and rig just few more votes.

It's no different than bitcoin where someone who has a ton of mining power has more of a vote.

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. People seem to forget that. But it's understandable since intuitively it might seem undemocratic.

[joefox]

http://mynxt.org is lovely.  Great work; exactly the kind of beginner-friendly interface we need!

And so much going on today -- gonna have a BUNCH of wiki updates to do tonight....!

[TwinWinNerD]

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.

and coinage should not be weighted that hard. because we DON'T want to discurage someone from changing passwords once in a time, also for spending and trading!

[Anon136]

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.

and coinage should not be weighted that hard. because we DON'T want to discurage someone from changing passwords once in a time, also for spending and trading!

point taken

though perhaps maybe the better lesson to be learned here is to not give voting to much power.

[NxtChg]

http://mynxt.org is lovely.  Great work; exactly the kind of beginner-friendly interface we need!

And so much going on today -- gonna have a BUNCH of wiki updates to do tonight....!

Owner of http://mynxt.org - please change my link to https.

https://nxtchg.com

[garcias]

WE NEED AN ACCOUNT FREEZE CODE CAPABILITY A USER CAN LOAD INTO THE BLOCKCHAIN AS A PAID MESSAGE THAT ALL NODES WILL RECOGNIZE AND REJECT ALL TRANSACTIONS OUT OF THIS ACCOUNT UNTIL A USER REVERSES IT AND TURNS IT OFF WITH A SECOND PASSWORD.

No need to shout, but yes. +1

###

woulda saved me 107000 NXT

you lost 107K??  
Thats 7.4K$ right now and the speed train is just on beggining
 

[okaynow]

+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)

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.

On the contrary, it is something that has to be there from the start. So that noone will have to find a way to avoid it during a poll.

Stating that "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"
and that "1 vote per account than fraudsters will make a zillion accounts with one nxt each" so to counter that we should charge a vote
is equal to putting a gun in someones head. How can the thousands that only have one nxt participate?

I can see a lot of people here asking for votes to be paid, and for a veiled centralised committee.
I cannot understand any reason WHY does someone have to pay in order to vote. The only reason that makes sense to me is that we are actively trying to make people NOT vote. Then, like in our polls, only 40-50 people will vote, and we will call this "the community" and not "the ~50 that showed up"

[Come-from-Beyond]

I've known that one of the moderators supports FC's scam attempt. I've sent a PM to theymos to get his opinion, would be interesting to know his position...

[okaynow]

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?

[utopianfuture]

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)

Code:

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 ?

[TwinWinNerD]

WE NEED AN ACCOUNT FREEZE CODE CAPABILITY A USER CAN LOAD INTO THE BLOCKCHAIN AS A PAID MESSAGE THAT ALL NODES WILL RECOGNIZE AND REJECT ALL TRANSACTIONS OUT OF THIS ACCOUNT UNTIL A USER REVERSES IT AND TURNS IT OFF WITH A SECOND PASSWORD.

No need to shout, but yes. +1

###

woulda saved me 107000 NXT

you lost 107K??  
Thats 7.4K$ right now and the speed train is just on beggining
 

haha , way to rub it in!!!

[Anon136]

+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.

[coolmist]

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.

I have a solution that will allow almost complete fairness and can identify accounts being controlled by a singular user/group to change the result.

I think this  a perfect time to use weak artificial intelligence algorithms.

[okaynow]

+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.

You say:
By making voting free people vote because they have no reason not to.

But voting is about engaging in a community[/b, taking part in the process. What you say is completely opposite by the idea of voting.

[bitcoinrocks]

Why in the world are we empowering people with no software experience to make software decisions?

[klee]

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.

I have a solution that will allow almost complete fairness and can identify accounts being controlled by a singular user/group to change the result.

I think this  a perfect time to use weak artificial intelligence algorithms.

I am all ears!

[NxtChg]

I think this  a perfect time to use weak artificial intelligence algorithms.

So long as the voting system won't ask one day for my clothes and motorcycle.

[newsilike]

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.

and coinage should not be weighted that hard. because we DON'T want to discurage someone from changing passwords once in a time, also for spending and trading!

point taken

though perhaps maybe the better lesson to be learned here is to not give voting to much power.

Or we go with account-age in coherence with stake? lol
So many possibilities so hard to figure out..
@

Why in the world are we empowering people with no software experience to make software decisions?

Would give those longer involved with Nxt more power.

[PGPpfKkx]

who made the flyer for nxt which is posted in a number of threads? its nice but...

it is a mortal sin to put the name "clone wars" and below it namecoin and peercoin. litecoin and feather deserve to be there but gee, nxt is using the innovative code (Pos) that was revolutionized by peercoin
and namecoin is a revolution by itself with rogue dns,smart contracts and other stuff.

don't turn nxt into a hoax by advertising mumbo jumbo