NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information

[gbeirn]

Q: What is the biggest complaint/criticism of NXT right now?
A: Unfair distribution of NXT

Proposal: Let those with the most NXT have the most votes, further giving more power to those who have already been fortunate.  

Conclusion: NXT is doomed. The end.

[1715684487]

1715684487

[coolmist]

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.

I have a solution...

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!

Currently developing the algorithm. It needs multiple voting events to start working.

This is the simplest explanation I can give without a coded application to demonstrate.

additional variable that needs to be added, amount of times an account has voted.

initialvoteWeight = (other variables)(1 / similarity)^2(TotalAccountVotes)

this prevents people from creating a new account each time to vote, or rather it docks them voting power

First vote will be initiated and completed.

"Banks" of accounts that have voted will be created for each option after each vote.

Bank A will always contain the accounts of the winning vote

bankA1[accounts[1-100]] 100 votes + accounts x, y, and z votes.
bankB1[accounts[101-150]] 50 votes

Bank A1 won by 66%

Second vote will commence

"Banks" of accounts that have voted will be created for each option after each vote.

bankA2[accounts[1-75 and 100-109]]  85 votes + accounts x, y, and z votes.

bankB2[accounts[76-99 and 110-150]] 65 votes

Bank A2 won by 56%


third vote will commence

"Banks" of accounts that have voted will be created for each option after each vote.

bankA3[accounts[1-35, 51-75 and 90-150]]  120 votes + accounts x and y votes.

bankB3[accounts[36-50 and 76-89]] 30 votes

BankA3 won by 80%

----

This will be translated into repeat and if statements soon.

if bankA1 contains account[z and x and y] and bankA2 contains account[z and x and y] and bankA3 contains account[z and x and y] set similarity of accounts z, x and y to similarity + 1

Code:

similarity[z] = 1
similarity[x] = 1
similarity[y] = 1

Set totalAccountVotes of account[z and x and y] to totalAccountVotes + 1

end if

if bankA1 contains account[x and y] and bankA2 contains account[x and y] and bankA3 contains account[x and y] and bankA4 contains account[x and y]

set similarity to similarity + 1

Code:

similarity[z] = 1
similarity[x] = 2
similarity[y] = 2

essentially voting power of z will be 4 times higher than x or y. This is just a rough construct of my idea.[/color]

[TwinWinNerD]

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.

As long as this system can be reversed i think it is ok. Because someone WILL abuse it...

[msin]

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.

Sorry for the spoiler. Before u continue this discussion u'd better to know that PoS is required only during bootstrapping phase of Nxt. I can't reveal details now, u have to wait for the 3rd part of the plan.

Is that when BCNext reveals that he's Satoshi?

[gbeirn]

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?

[msin]

Q: What is the biggest complaint/criticism of NXT right now?
A: Unfair distribution of NXT

Proposal: Let those with the most NXT have the most votes, further giving more power to those who have already been fortunate.  

Conclusion: NXT is doomed. The end.

+1, everyone should have an equal vote, it should cost the amount of one AM per forging private key account.

[Come-from-Beyond]

I really wonder how to participate in writing a NXT white paper amid such a clandestine environment..

Well, looks like I told too much... Think of such a hint: Why BCNext chose "Nxt" as the name of the project. This hint should make u busy until u get all 3 pieces of the puzzle.

[okaynow]

This is flawed and can be massively manipulated

Yes, but the counterargument is a voting manipulation mechanism...

[Mistafreeze]

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

Anything can be massively manipulated.

[Come-from-Beyond]

Are you making something like coingen or not ?

Not sure yet. If Nxt goes well, we won't need coingen. Coingen will be implemented as a part of Nxt protocol.

[Come-from-Beyond]

Is that when BCNext reveals that he's Satoshi?

Maybe 

[EvilDave]

Bloody hell, voting again.

Way things are going, we'll all be dollar millionaires with very long beards by the time we finally agree on how to vote.

How about we just cut to the chase and try out a quick and dirty voting implementation and see how it works?


Set up a site, not in-client in any way.

Take a snapshot of all NXT accounts some time before the vote is announced. Only accounts created before the vote announcement may vote.

NXT account holders can log in to the site with account number/authorisation token.  IP is logged, so any IP addy only gets to vote once.

Vote is weighted by:

    NXT balance up to a certain point. A sigmoid curve is what we need, so that 1 NXT=1 vote initially, and 10,000NXT=9999 votes, then dropping off gradually until there is little difference in voting weight between a 5 megaNXT account and a 10megaNXT account.

    Age of the account. If u came in yesterday, u get less voting weight than someone who created their account 2 minutes after Genesis.




Lets just set it up and run it, see how it goes, then debate how to tweak it and get it perfect.
The current debate over the role of a funding committee would be a good test :
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=423241.0

I suspect it will never be perfect, because u simply can't please all the people all the time, but a test run will give us much more insight into the whole voting process and how it will work out in the real world.

[Secondleo]

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

Anything can be massively manipulated.

Anything simple can be massively manipulated.
Go back and look at the thought of low level AI algo.

I ask for a bounty for an algorithm that can link coins in different accounts to the same person with a high propability.

[gbeirn]

The simple fact is, however smart we think we are individually or collectively, there is always going to be someone or a group that comes along that is smarter.

My point being anything can and will be gamed. Whatever we create will not be perfect and never will be. We can spend eons debating and coming up with something but in the end someone will figure out how to cheat. It's (sadly) human nature.

Make the voting simple and try to cut out as much cheating as possible but we will never reduce it to 0. For those that wish to cheat, make it expensive to do so.

[NxtChg]

...not sure about nexern's distributed nxt agents

That's even worse: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bV-rhtet4Ow

[utopianfuture]

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#msg4626824

The worst of account based voting manipulation  can do it to approach stake based voting.

[okaynow]

Vote is weighted by:

    NXT balance up to a certain point. A sigmoid curve is what we need, so that 1 NXT=1 vote initially, and 10,000NXT=9999 votes, then dropping off gradually until there is little difference in voting weight between a 5 megaNXT account and a 10megaNXT account.

    Age of the account. If u came in yesterday, u get less voting weight than someone who created their account 2 minutes after Genesis.

That is the whole argument that has people here on more than two sides.
Your interpretation clearly favors both large wallets, and old wallets/

Why cannot one account have exactly the same voting power like any other account?
nobody seems to be able to answer this question withouthaving to resort to the "i have more n than you so i am the boss" argument.

[Come-from-Beyond]

That's even worse: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bV-rhtet4Ow

Btw, I charge a small fee from all guys who go to me via ur reference on the exchange. I hope u don't mind.

[Mistafreeze]

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#msg4626824

The worst of account based voting manipulation  can do it to approach stake based voting.

Damn good point.

[Damelon]

No system is perfect.
If we are trying for a perfect system, we will indeed be boned.

The question is if we are judging a system by the fact that someone can take advantage of it or by how much good it actually does.

If we can think up a simple (requirement 1) system that can be explained to any voter (requirement 2) that has a low probability of abuse (requirement 3) that also allows for tweaking in the future based on new insights (requirement 4), then I say implement it and accept that at some point it will f*ck up and we will be prepared for that.