NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information

[starik69]

It is so oxymoronic to watch those Nxters who already entrusted their finances to PoS system but still trying to cheat "1NXT=1Vote"  

[1714716724]

1714716724

[1714716724]

1714716724

[1714716724]

1714716724

[Komputor]

Actually, if we make voting "costly" then the whales will gain wealth even fast!

Please explain how, exactly?

Because we are in a POS system, and if voting cost more than the minimum fee amount, than a majority of the money spend for voting will go directly to the big account holders.

But in the example provided, isn't the voting fee one-time only / per account?

[Passion_ltc]

The more NXT someone has, the more right he has to decide. It's natural. Someone with 50% ownership on a company has a 50% right to decide something..

It's so easy. So why do you fighting over this so much?

[Anon136]

The more NXT someone has, the more right he has to decide. It's natural. Someone with 50% ownership on a company has a 50% right to decide something..

It's so easy. So why do you fighting over this so much?

+1

[iruu]

To me the question between the two is somewhat loaded. Let me explain why:

To participate one needs an account, and an account has a minimum cost
1 acc = 1 Nxt(open acc) + 1 Nxt(register public key) = 2Nxt per account

This is wrong. Why? Because a medium-sized holder (500k NXT) can do this for free in about one day. Just include all these transactions in his own block. No fees.

[ivanzhou]

http://cryptolife.net/in-depth-analysis-nxt/

lol. So many wrong things written there.

After reading the entire article, the guy only seemed interested in condemning NXT, as he has done many other altcoins, as he focuses on 3 things:
1) short account # invites passphrase collisions -- this can be mitigated by injecting alphabets or simply scale it up to 30+ numeric digits
2) initial distribution -- need we say more?!
3) lack of exchanges -- we are going on 2 and soon the major names

I suppose any coin that the author DOESN'T have a stake in, he feels the need to rub it in.  

Btw, he charges a freaking 1BTC for his so called premium content account.  1 freaking BTC!  

[Komputor]

The more NXT someone has, the more right he has to decide. It's natural. Someone with 50% ownership on a company has a 50% right to decide something..

It's so easy. So why do you fighting over this so much?

I agree too, but this is only under the assumption that large stakeholders will always do things in the best interest of the currency's growth and health. However, I am sure at some point there could be large NXT stakeholders that would vote for something just not acceptable by a majority of the community and it would be interesting to see how that would play out in the actual decision making process.

[iruu]

http://cryptolife.net/in-depth-analysis-nxt/

lol. So many wrong things written there.

After reading the entire article, the guy only seemed interested in condemning NXT, as he has done many other altcoins, as he focuses on 3 things:
1) short account # invites passphrase collisions -- this can be mitigated by injecting alphabets or simply scale it up to 30+ numeric digits
2) initial distribution -- need we say more?!
3) lack of exchanges -- we are going on 2 and soon the major names

I suppose any coin that the author DOESN'T have a stake in, he feels the need to rub it in.  

Btw, he charges a freaking 1BTC for his so called premium content account.  1 freaking BTC!  

This guy is Hazard, he was screaming 'SCAM' on a page 3 in the original NXT thread. I think he's just butthurt he was soo close to an astronomical return...

Obvious scam.

Please don't send any money to an account created 4 days ago.

[TwinWinNerD]

We may have a chance to get involved with LEASERIG if we speak up here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=433319

Get in!

did you read his opening post, he said 0.0001BTC fee is too much for him. So you want him to pay more with using 1 NXT?

[timmyd]

We may have a chance to get involved with LEASERIG if we speak up here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=433319

Get in!

miners wont like nxt. Their investments are in mining

[kunibopl]

I would suggest one vote per IP address. I am a systems administrator by trade and could conceivably vote for many IP addresses but I would not. I don’t think very many in my position would either. I don’t think that multiple voters behind the same firewall would be much of an issue either. To me this seems a better solution to 1 NXT – 1 vote.

I think it's plain wrong to start with any idea, that contradicts an anonymous network.

[timmyd]

We may have a chance to get involved with LEASERIG if we speak up here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=433319

Get in!

miners wont like nxt. Their investments are in mining

it was a joke!






okay actually I forgot about that

[xyzzyx]

Hey guys, just a reminder: we're at block 50901 as of this posting.  There are still lots of clients with less than v0.5.10 running.  If you know someone running one of the older clients, contact them to remind them that they'll fork from the chain if they don't upgrade to v0.5.10 by block 51000.

That is all.

[pandaisftw]

The more NXT someone has, the more right he has to decide. It's natural. Someone with 50% ownership on a company has a 50% right to decide something..

It's so easy. So why do you fighting over this so much?

+1

Agreed.

with 1 voting acc at 4Nxt to participate we have the following:

Code:

1 acc  (1Nxt)  = 1 vote  = 3Nxt to create + 1Nxt to vote = 1 voice 3Nxt + 1 vote = 4Nnxt
1 acc  (5Nxt)  = 1 vote  = 3Nxt to create + 1nxt to vote = 1 voice 3Nxt + 1 vote = 4Nnxt
1 acc(5milNxt) = 1 vote  = 3Nxt to create + 1Nxt to vote = 1 voice 3Nxt + 1 vote = 4Nnxt

Still we can't be sure that everyone will behave. What we can do from here is to 
make it more expensive and less cost effective for an account with a large balance
trying to create voting puppets to rig the vote.

If 1acc(5mil) creates 5acc(1mil) to try to rig the vote, his vote would cost him
5acc (1milNxt) = 5 votes = 20Nxt to create + 5Nxt to vote = 1 voice 25Nxt
if 1acc(5milNxt) creates 10.000 vote puppets, let him go bankrupt and pay the fees.

Let the nodes collect the fees

This is my idea. NXT is bringing a whole new message to our society and we should
try to emphasize on making it more transparent. Giving voting power to a large wallet
will be a fatal blow to the foundations of NXT, as it is completely anti-social.

Sorry for the wall of text, but voting is a serious issue.
-Fo-
 
 

Does anyone else think this is an excellent suggestion? Why can't we adopt this approach to the voting system?

This won't work. The large holder only has to do this once. What's to stop a large holder from making 10000 accounts now, and then having 10000 votes forever while everyone else who doesn't cheat only has 1? This is also the reason why time-locks won't work. They can just create the accounts now, and use them X months later.

IMO, any methods with fees won't work, because guess who has more money to afford fees? Right, large stakeholders. Introducing anything above minimum fee into VS is actually punishing small stakeholders.

POS Voting System (1 NXT = 1 Vote) is the only way to ensure everyone, based proportionally on their stake, has an equal say.

[pandaisftw]

I was just looking at the Ethereum thread, and was wondering: couldn't NXT technically implement what Ethereum is trying to do in a parallel blockchain that allows turing-complete code to execute? IMO Ethereum is interesting, but isn't particularly innovative (not in the way transparent forging is).

A few advantages I see if this is possible within the NXT ecosystem:
1) NXT is already established. No need for massive development of the network, and thus no need for an expensive, over-complicated IPO to get it off the ground.
2) These scripts can interact with other aspects of the NXT ecosystem, which is admittedly much larger in scope than Ethereum will ever be. For example, you can send 0.00001 NXT to "Asset Merchant Rating" script, and you can rate a merchant you had a pleasant/negative experience with, and the program will keep track of it on the parallel blockchain without the bloat that may come if we used AM for this purpose.
3) Take advantage of all the idling CPU power in most nodes. Since NXT client itself does not require much resources to run, perhaps this will give all the miners from PoW-world something to focus on.
4) Provide an increase fees for people willing to participate in the parallel blockchain. People with RPi's can just stick to basic forging, while those running nodes on powerful PC's can additionally use their CPU power to run these programs.
5) NXT has already set the precedent for decentralized development (something I'm rather proud of, and I have to hand it to BCNext, that was a very smart decision), so people making a decentralized effort to create decentralized programs fits the theme rather well.

What's left is to figure out how to integrate a PoW system within a PoS system. But since c-f-b is already working on that, I assume it can be done.

sure, nxt will have the first DNA[1] latest end next month. while others talking we are coding.
DNA can also communicate with other DNA's via DNL[2], asking for additional functions and can
access external resources on demand while sandboxed and configurable to it's own special needs.
AM can be used as a direct DNA storage if the size fit's or chunk itself and recombine if
larger or even running on trusted nodes as a monolithical, remote executable code block.
client can scan AM for DNA resources or fetch the DNA directory from nodes via DNS[3] call
to get the latest jump and recombination list. DNAs can handle also thier own account, polling
the transactions and balance to verify service payments on activation.

[1] decentralized nxt agent
[2] decentralized nxt logic   (repository of pure function fragments, e.g api repo to access online quotes)
[3] decentralized nxt services

Wow! I did not know all this was going on already!

I'm excited to see the results, keep up the good work!

[landomata]

Tiered voting weight by reputation

Tiered voting is not suited for all types of decisions, so we need both regular and tier voting.

let the poll originator decide.....let them set the parameters.

[Passion_ltc]

Newest NXTarea.com Feature: The Paper Wallet Creator





NXTarea.com proudly announce it's newest feature! The Paper Wallet Creator.

You can create Paper Wallets which you will print out, store them in your safe and open them in 1 year (when the price is $1 per NXT) or give them to friends.

We do not take the risks of managing your password. You have to enter it by hand later or enter it by yourself on your own computer.

You simply enter your Name, nickname or friend's name and the token (website: nxtarea.com) of the account and click on the button "Download Interior Design". The Exterior Design is available via the button "Download Exterior Design" (in grey).

I hope you like this small feature and that you may use it in the future. Suggestions to: contact@nxtarea.com

To the Paper Wallet Creator!


Thank you.

[Komputor]

This won't work. The large holder only has to do this once. What's to stop a large holder from making 10000 accounts now, and then having 10000 votes forever while everyone else who doesn't cheat only has 1? This is also the reason why time-locks won't work. They can just create the accounts now, and use them X months later.

IMO, any methods with fees won't work, because guess who has more money to afford fees? Right, large stakeholders. Introducing anything above minimum fee into VS is actually punishing small stakeholders.

POS Voting System (1 NXT = 1 Vote) is the only way to ensure everyone, based proportionally on their stake, has an equal say.

Fair points. I see how 1nxt = 1 vote is a better approach that way.
After some thought, it also seems highly unlikely that the largest stakeholders will intentionally vote against the majority of all stakeholders. Suppose this does happen, then if the distribution of NXT remains healthy, they should still not have an unfair voting advantage.

[NxtChg]

everyone is really making this whole voting thing more complicated than it needs to be. Just give people voting power in proportion to their stake. enforce a fee equal to the minimum transaction fee to ensure that they actually care about what they are voting on. and as for how long the stake must have remained stationary, let the issuer of the ballot determine that. its not perfect but nothing ever will be and its the best trade off in incentives problems i can think of.

The problem is that not all decisions can be made like this.

Hypothetical example: we decide to choose a new logo.

So now we are relying on the taste of a few rich guys for something everybody will see everyday?

[Passion_ltc]

The more NXT someone has, the more right he has to decide. It's natural. Someone with 50% ownership on a company has a 50% right to decide something..

It's so easy. So why do you fighting over this so much?

I agree too, but this is only under the assumption that large stakeholders will always do things in the best interest of the currency's growth and health. However, I am sure at some point there could be large NXT stakeholders that would vote for something just not acceptable by a majority of the community and it would be interesting to see how that would play out in the actual decision making process.

Well, they are the majority. So let it be.