Anon136 (OP)
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1217
|
 |
January 23, 2014, 08:58:12 PM
Last edit: January 24, 2014, 06:10:16 PM by Anon136 |
|
The security of the NXT network is a function of the level of decentralization of the stake. The more decentralized the stake, the more security each confirmation lends to a transaction. It is important for the long term health of the network that the proper balance be struck between the reward that the initial stake holders rightfully deserve for the risks they have legitimately taken and the necessity for a certain level of decentralization of stake in a proof of stake system.
With that being said it isn't immediately clear what is the right trade off or how these stake holders should go about about addressing this issue. The purpose of this thread is twofold. The space at the top will be reserved for statement by stakeholders about thinks like goals, time frame and proposed means of meeting those goals. Below that will be available for all manner of discussion related to this topic.
|
Rep Thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=381041If one can not confer upon another a right which he does not himself first possess, by what means does the state derive the right to engage in behaviors from which the public is prohibited? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Be very wary of relying on JavaScript for security on crypto sites. The site can change the JavaScript at any time unless you take unusual precautions, and browsers are not generally known for their airtight security.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
Anon136 (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1217
|
|
January 23, 2014, 08:58:21 PM |
|
reserved
|
Rep Thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=381041If one can not confer upon another a right which he does not himself first possess, by what means does the state derive the right to engage in behaviors from which the public is prohibited? |
|
|
Anon136 (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1217
|
|
January 23, 2014, 08:58:30 PM |
|
reserved
|
Rep Thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=381041If one can not confer upon another a right which he does not himself first possess, by what means does the state derive the right to engage in behaviors from which the public is prohibited? |
|
|
Anon136 (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1217
|
|
January 23, 2014, 08:58:39 PM |
|
reserved
|
Rep Thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=381041If one can not confer upon another a right which he does not himself first possess, by what means does the state derive the right to engage in behaviors from which the public is prohibited? |
|
|
|
nmersulypnem
|
|
January 23, 2014, 09:04:56 PM |
|
Proof of Stake is never going to succeed. It does not incentivize adoption. Honestly, even Doge is a better coin than NXT.
|
|
|
|
|
msin
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1470
Merit: 1004
|
|
January 23, 2014, 09:16:05 PM |
|
Proof of Stake is never going to succeed. It does not incentivize adoption. Honestly, even Doge is a better coin than NXT.
"Never say Never" - Justin Bieber |
|
|
|
|
Anon136 (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1217
|
|
January 23, 2014, 09:21:51 PM |
|
I forgot to make it self moderated. please just ignore off topic comments.
|
Rep Thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=381041If one can not confer upon another a right which he does not himself first possess, by what means does the state derive the right to engage in behaviors from which the public is prohibited? |
|
|
starik69
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1367
Merit: 1000
|
|
January 23, 2014, 09:39:23 PM |
|
Better make new self moderated.
Btw, how would we identify stake holders?
|
|
|
|
|
Anon136 (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1217
|
|
January 23, 2014, 09:43:40 PM |
|
Better make new self moderated.
Btw, how would we identify stake holders?
any idea how. I tried and it wouldn't let me delete or move this one. |
Rep Thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=381041If one can not confer upon another a right which he does not himself first possess, by what means does the state derive the right to engage in behaviors from which the public is prohibited? |
|
|
|
Chang Hum
|
|
January 23, 2014, 10:20:04 PM |
|
Better make new self moderated.
Btw, how would we identify stake holders?
They're wearing fancy clothes and driving flashy cars  |
|
|
|
|
Damelon
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1092
Merit: 1010
|
|
January 23, 2014, 10:26:22 PM |
|
Better make new self moderated.
Btw, how would we identify stake holders?
any idea how. I tried and it wouldn't let me delete or move this one. Abandon it and let it die and just start a new one is probably the only choice. Change the title to "RIP: you were young, but fatally flawed" |
|
|
|
msin
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1470
Merit: 1004
|
|
January 24, 2014, 02:49:25 AM |
|
I thinks its a dead topic. Stakeholders have already greatly distributed their share, many of the large Nxt holders were early buyers from stakeholders. I don't think a stakeholder will post here cause most people will just berate them with ridicule. Distribution will continue to happen, many are waiting for decentralized exchange.
|
|
|
|
|
|
NWO
|
|
January 24, 2014, 03:23:50 AM |
|
Better make new self moderated.
Btw, how would we identify stake holders?
any idea how. I tried and it wouldn't let me delete or move this one. You have been a member since 2010 and you still do not know how to create a self-moderated thread  |
|
|
|
|
Anon136 (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1217
|
|
January 24, 2014, 03:37:31 AM |
|
Better make new self moderated.
Btw, how would we identify stake holders?
any idea how. I tried and it wouldn't let me delete or move this one. You have been a member since 2010 and you still do not know how to create a self-moderated thread i know how to create it. what i dont know is how to make an existing and presently not self moderated thread self moderated. |
Rep Thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=381041If one can not confer upon another a right which he does not himself first possess, by what means does the state derive the right to engage in behaviors from which the public is prohibited? |
|
|
Anon136 (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1217
|
|
January 24, 2014, 03:39:18 AM |
|
I thinks its a dead topic. Stakeholders have already greatly distributed their share, many of the large Nxt holders were early buyers from stakeholders. I don't think a stakeholder will post here cause most people will just berate them with ridicule. Distribution will continue to happen, many are waiting for decentralized exchange.
perhaps you are right. i made this thread because cfb argued against lowering transaction fees by saying the stake was not distributed enough yet. |
Rep Thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=381041If one can not confer upon another a right which he does not himself first possess, by what means does the state derive the right to engage in behaviors from which the public is prohibited? |
|
|
Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2142
Merit: 1009
Newbie
|
|
January 24, 2014, 08:36:24 AM |
|
We shouldn't let this thread to die. I like comments similar to Proof of Stake is never going to succeed. It does not incentivize adoption. Honestly, even Doge is a better coin than NXT.
coz they r like encrypted messages from subconsciousness. For example, decryption of the above message gives such text: I spent a lot of money on GPUs/ASICs. I understand nothing but like to look a smart guy. I bought DOGE right before the price went down and now I want to get my money back. |
|
|
|
|
|
NxtChoice
|
|
January 24, 2014, 10:40:43 AM |
|
I thinks its a dead topic. Stakeholders have already greatly distributed their share, many of the large Nxt holders were early buyers from stakeholders. I don't think a stakeholder will post here cause most people will just berate them with ridicule. Distribution will continue to happen, many are waiting for decentralized exchange.
perhaps you are right. i made this thread because cfb argued against lowering transaction fees by saying the stake was not distributed enough yet. Based on my understanding of Peercoin PoS minting, the transaction input was split to two outputs after the PoS block reward so that the number of PoS "miners" gets more and more in the PoS network which will competes during the PoS minting. Through this tx split, PoS network get bigger and bigger and more and more people must open the wallet to take party in the minting to get rewards(interest) and can't hibernate for 3 months and then open wallet to mint. As we know, there is no multiple "inputs" in Nxt account, so is there any way similar to get more and more forgers? And at the same time, I think it may get the stake distributed more evenly. |
|
|
|
|
|
gs02xzz
|
|
January 24, 2014, 01:32:39 PM |
|
I can understand the importance of a better distribution of Nxt and it is difficult for the large stakeholders (whoever own 5M+ Nxt IMHO) to quickly distribute their NXT because they could hope to sell them at a better price in the future. But the dilemma is that if those large stakeholders do not distribute their NXT now a healthy NXT network may not be created and there maybe no a better price in the future.
It makes sense that the large stakeholders would only distribute their NXT if the distribution will make the price of NXT higher in the future. I have couples of suggestion here:
1) setting up a target for healthy max holding. I see that some stakeholders are still holding 5% of total NXT. Is it a healthy max holding? I do't know. For me it seems 1% is more healthy target based on the opinions I read online.
2) setting a max forging power at current stage. I see the large accounts have been gobbling the transaction fees because their balance are high. To build up a wider and stabler network, we need to encourage people to build more nodes and reward those node guys at this early stage of NXT. We can set up the max forging power as 500k or 1M, which means that all accounts with more than 500k or more than 1M NXT will be treated as 500k or 1M. Therefore the small accounts will have more forging power and receive more NXT as fees. This can be ended at a time when we have better network and distribution.
3) setting up a fund for the future development of NXT. Large stakeholders can chip in certain percentage of their NXT to this fund to facilitate the future development of NXT.
|
|
|
|
|
msin
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1470
Merit: 1004
|
|
January 24, 2014, 01:47:49 PM |
|
I can understand the importance of a better distribution of Nxt and it is difficult for the large stakeholders (whoever own 5M+ Nxt IMHO) to quickly distribute their NXT because they could hope to sell them at a better price in the future. But the dilemma is that if those large stakeholders do not distribute their NXT now a healthy NXT network may not be created and there maybe no a better price in the future.
It makes sense that the large stakeholders would only distribute their NXT if the distribution will make the price of NXT higher in the future. I have couples of suggestion here:
1) setting up a target for healthy max holding. I see that some stakeholders are still holding 5% of total NXT. Is it a healthy max holding? I do't know. For me it seems 1% is more healthy target based on the opinions I read online.
2) setting a max forging power at current stage. I see the large accounts have been gobbling the transaction fees because their balance are high. To build up a wider and stabler network, we need to encourage people to build more nodes and reward those node guys at this early stage of NXT. We can set up the max forging power as 500k or 1M, which means that all accounts with more than 500k or more than 1M NXT will be treated as 500k or 1M. Therefore the small accounts will have more forging power and receive more NXT as fees. This can be ended at a time when we have better network and distribution.
3) setting up a fund for the future development of NXT. Large stakeholders can chip in certain percentage of their NXT to this fund to facilitate the future development of NXT.
I like the idea, but Nxt is 100℅ POS (for now), so that wouldn't be fair to limit forging abilities. I think overall growth has been healthy and we will continue to grow user base once there are more usable features. Right now people buy to hoard or to make quick profit, so we need to have a little more patience. |
|
|
|
|
|
Chang Hum
|
|
January 24, 2014, 03:45:06 PM |
|
I can understand the importance of a better distribution of Nxt and it is difficult for the large stakeholders (whoever own 5M+ Nxt IMHO) to quickly distribute their NXT because they could hope to sell them at a better price in the future. But the dilemma is that if those large stakeholders do not distribute their NXT now a healthy NXT network may not be created and there maybe no a better price in the future.
It makes sense that the large stakeholders would only distribute their NXT if the distribution will make the price of NXT higher in the future. I have couples of suggestion here:
1) setting up a target for healthy max holding. I see that some stakeholders are still holding 5% of total NXT. Is it a healthy max holding? I do't know. For me it seems 1% is more healthy target based on the opinions I read online.
2) setting a max forging power at current stage. I see the large accounts have been gobbling the transaction fees because their balance are high. To build up a wider and stabler network, we need to encourage people to build more nodes and reward those node guys at this early stage of NXT. We can set up the max forging power as 500k or 1M, which means that all accounts with more than 500k or more than 1M NXT will be treated as 500k or 1M. Therefore the small accounts will have more forging power and receive more NXT as fees. This can be ended at a time when we have better network and distribution.
3) setting up a fund for the future development of NXT. Large stakeholders can chip in certain percentage of their NXT to this fund to facilitate the future development of NXT.
That will a real kick in the teeth for large stakeholders if they have to spend 5 minutes setting up 10 new accounts with 500k in each. |
|
|
|
|
|
