NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information

[Damelon]

I have good news for u dudes.They added Nxt!

Boom!
That should create some more interest :-)

[1715215099]

1715215099

[1715215099]

1715215099

[1715215099]

1715215099

[1715215099]

1715215099

[1715215099]

1715215099

[Labteck]

just a poll on a website,enough fair and tested

[TwinWinNerD]

I have good news for u dudes.They added Nxt!
IMAGE

Boom!
That should create some more interest :-)

That is awesome indeed!

[Rycco]

I have good news for u dudes.They added Nxt!
IMAGE

Boom!
That should create some more interest :-)

That is awesome indeed!

Great!

[NxtChg]

Time to repeat myself:

My proposal: small group of guys organise, throw up a quick and dirty voting website as soon as possible, taking as much community feedback into account as possible.

We vote, see how it goes, then change/modify/tweak the voting system until the flood of complaints about it are reduced to a minimum.
Once the site is working to (almost) everyones satisfaction, transfer that functionality into the Nxt client(s)

I propose: utopianfuture, smartwart, coolmist (and anyone else who feels really strongly about it or has the tech skills to get a site up) form a working group and throw something up on the Webs to try out.

I've answered you already! We stopped because CfB said there will be a built-in voting system, so there is no point in making the site now if VS will be done in a week.

[pandaisftw]

This sounds interesting, a method to vote by account, but removes the incentive to make a ton of new accounts? I'm not sure if I grasp the bottomline of this implementation, can you state in words how this will prevent someone from making a ton of accounts? Lastly, how can you calculate similarity? Can't someone can just put their coins through a mixer/exchange?

It won't prevent anyone from making a ton of new accounts, however when they use those accounts to vote for one option the accounts that appear to be participating in a organized manner will have their similarity increased,decreasing voting weight.

similarity starts as one for all accounts

Vote issue 1 is split by a 60% 40% vote

statistically a voter chosen at random will have a 60% chance of choosing the winning outcome, a person with multiple accounts has a higher probability initially.

Vote issue 2 is split by a 60% 40% vote

Vote issue 3 is split by a 60% 40% vote

BankA_x represents accounts that voted and won.

If BankA₁ contains [accounts a, b, c, d, x, y and z]

and BankA₂ contains [accounts b, c, y and z]

and BankA₃ contains [accounts a, b, y and z] and



b, y and z's similarity will be increased by .1/ (.216), .216 being the probability of that occurring naturally (.6^3). As the probability goes to zero the similarity is increased exponentially.

The mixer/exchange problem is circumvented by adding the timesVoted variable, the more times an account has cast a vote for an issue the more weight his vote will have exponentially.

So if you don't vote and try to game the system by varying votes between accounts you will be left in the dust by people consistently voting.

An account recently made will have 25% the voting power of a account that has voted once already.

I like it. It removes the incentive to make multiple accounts to vote almost completely. Although, I assume that most people here vote in the best interest of NXT, so wouldn't a lot of people get their voting power reduced just because they always vote in the best interest of NXT (and thus are very likely to chose the same option)? Maybe this is a fringe case and not common at all? This seems to work better in multi-option polls, where it is much less likely for two individuals to coincide often. Also, this scenario just came to mind: Suppose someone creates 1000 accounts for the purpose of voting. Can't he game this system by randomly voting on issues he doesn't care about (reducing similarity greatly and not really influencing the vote in anyway) and when one he cares about does come up, he points all 1000 accounts at the option he wants? Because of his previous random voting pattern, the system will not be able to detect that he is gaming this particular vote.

We would also have to maintain a separate ledger to hold the records of all the accounts that voted, correct? (Or use AM, but at 1000 bytes per message, the number of messages required would increase over time as more and more accounts vote) We could run a parallel blockchain (secured by the NXT network) that only records matters dealing with the voting system. Voting would cost min fee (1 NXT), and these payments will be paid out to forgers, encouraging them to take on the second blockchain.

[dzarmush]

If I have $10 and Bill Gates has 50 billion, does this mean he's 5 billion times smarter than me?

Yes 

[gbeirn]

I don't know if someone else read betwen the lines but...

...lots of text....

NXT can handle all transactions from all ***coins that are out today together?


I think this will become really huge... think about Bitcoin on top of NXT

Sorry, I'm dreaming...

This reminds me of my last thought last night before I headed to bed:

We all know that the banhammer is coming down on Bitcoin (and other cryptos) very soon in China.

We also all know that NXT will soon have an integrated Asset Exchange, freeing us from needing to use 3rd party exchanges such as DGEX, BTER, etc, and that this feature will be very useful in the current Chinese environment. No exchanges, true peer-2-peer currency exchange.

The possibly crazy concept here is : will it be possible (or can it be implemented?) to exchange other cryptos such as Bitcoin thru the NXT asset exchange, or an add-on to the AE?

If NXT could become a backdoor into (or out of) China for all other cryptos, things could get very interesting.

Yep! Asset exchange and colored coins

[GameKyuubi]

BTER sure is taking its time to credit my NXT... How long did it take for others?

[gbeirn]

If I have $10 and Bill Gates has 50 billion, does this mean he's 5 billion times smarter than me?

Yes 

That's how the math works out

[loopgate88]

This sounds interesting, a method to vote by account, but removes the incentive to make a ton of new accounts? I'm not sure if I grasp the bottomline of this implementation, can you state in words how this will prevent someone from making a ton of accounts? Lastly, how can you calculate similarity? Can't someone can just put their coins through a mixer/exchange?

It won't prevent anyone from making a ton of new accounts, however when they use those accounts to vote for one option the accounts that appear to be participating in a organized manner will have their similarity increased,decreasing voting weight.

similarity starts as one for all accounts

Vote issue 1 is split by a 60% 40% vote

statistically a voter chosen at random will have a 60% chance of choosing the winning outcome, a person with multiple accounts has a higher probability initially.

Vote issue 2 is split by a 60% 40% vote

Vote issue 3 is split by a 60% 40% vote

BankA_x represents accounts that voted and won.

If BankA₁ contains [accounts a, b, c, d, x, y and z]

and BankA₂ contains [accounts b, c, y and z]

and BankA₃ contains [accounts a, b, y and z] and



b, y and z's similarity will be increased by .1/ (.216), .216 being the probability of that occurring naturally (.6^3). As the probability goes to zero the similarity is increased exponentially.

The mixer/exchange problem is circumvented by adding the timesVoted variable, the more times an account has cast a vote for an issue the more weight his vote will have exponentially.

So if you don't vote and try to game the system by varying votes between accounts you will be left in the dust by people consistently voting.

An account recently made will have 25% the voting power of a account that has voted once already.

I like it. It removes the incentive to make multiple accounts to vote almost completely. Although, I assume that most people here vote in the best interest of NXT, so wouldn't a lot of people get their voting power reduced just because they always vote in the best interest of NXT (and thus are very likely to chose the same option)? Maybe this is a fringe case and not common at all? This seems to work better in multi-option polls, where it is much less likely for two individuals to coincide often. Also, this scenario just came to mind: Suppose someone creates 1000 accounts for the purpose of voting. Can't he game this system by randomly voting on issues he doesn't care about (reducing similarity greatly and not really influencing the vote in anyway) and when one he cares about does come up, he points all 1000 accounts at the option he wants? Because of his previous random voting pattern, the system will not be able to detect that he is gaming this particular vote.

We would also have to maintain a separate ledger to hold the records of all the accounts that voted, correct? (Or use AM, but at 1000 bytes per message, the number of messages required would increase over time as more and more accounts vote) We could run a parallel blockchain (secured by the NXT network) that only records matters dealing with the voting system. Voting would cost min fee (1 NXT), and these payments will be paid out to forgers, encouraging them to take on the second blockchain.

This looks good

[Mises_77]

BTER sure is taking its time to credit my NXT... How long did it take for others?

My first deposit went in after 20 confirmations. My second took forever, but eventually went in.

Mises

[coolmist]

I like it. It removes the incentive to make multiple accounts to vote almost completely. Although, I assume that most people here vote in the best interest of NXT, so wouldn't a lot of people get their voting power reduced just because they always vote in the best interest of NXT (and thus are very likely to chose the same option)?

Yep, so if 90% of people choose option a on the first deliberation

90% choose b on the second

and 90% choose c on the third

b, y and z's similarity in the above example will be increased by .1/ ((.9 )*( .9)*( .9)) P_1-3^3


we could even set it to increase by .1/((P₁+D)(P₂+D)(P₃+D))

where P is the winning percentage and D is the all time average deviation by which the vote is split.

Maybe this is a fringe case and not common at all? This seems to work better in multi-option polls, where it is much less likely for two individuals to coincide often. Also, this scenario just came to mind: Suppose someone creates 1000 accounts for the purpose of voting. Can't he game this system by randomly voting on issues he doesn't care about (reducing similarity greatly and not really influencing the vote in anyway) and when one he cares about does come up, he points all 1000 accounts at the option he wants? Because of his previous random voting pattern, the system will not be able to detect that he is gaming this particular vote.

I guess it would have to be saved for critical/important issues. I think I can find a way around this given some time.

We would also have to maintain a separate ledger to hold the records of all the accounts that voted, correct? (Or use AM, but at 1000 bytes per message, the number of messages required would increase over time as more and more accounts vote) We could run a parallel blockchain (secured by the NXT network) that only records matters dealing with the voting system. Voting would cost min fee (1 NXT), and these payments will be paid out to forgers, encouraging them to take on the second blockchain.

I think a parallel blockchain for voting would be amazing!

[okaynow]

BTER sure is taking its time to credit my NXT... How long did it take for others?

instantly for me, like after 5 transactions/


its about to hit 0.0001 at bter!

[twistelaar]

Hey people, how much NEXT will become now its on btr and soon also on cryptsy and others? thanks!

[dzarmush]

Hey people, how much NEXT will become now its on btr and soon also on cryptsy and others? thanks!

0.00015 within next 10 hours and then back to 0.000085

[gbeirn]

Hey people, how much NEXT will become now its on btr and soon also on cryptsy and others? thanks!

1NXT=1BTC

[salsacz]

Bter owns only 11 mega NXT now. Dgex owns 63 mega. Now do your maths

[jl777]

Bter owns only 11 mega NXT now. Dgex owns 63 mega. Now do your maths

Bter got 4 million NXT deposited first day, 7 million second day. At this rate within a week bter will have the most NXT deposits

buying panic starting in China for NXT and DOGE, both following similar price pattern today

James

[kunibopl]

What do you think about this idea for decentralized voting using biometric verification (voting @ the bottom): http://juliansarokin.com/100-years-the-future-of-government/

sorry I was too lazy to read the whole article. can you summarize?
but biometric verification in an anonymous system sounds strange.

guys, I vote to put the voting system aside for a while.
there are other ways to come to conclusions. there's also nothing bad when some people temporarily step forward and organize things in a more centralized way.