So we have the votes issue. There are a few ideas here and if i'm following the discussion correctly the main two propositions are:
1 Nxt = 1 vote or 1 acc = 1 vote
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
If 1 Nxt = 1 vote then
1acc(1Nxt) = 1 vote = 2Nxt once to participate for ever = 1 account 1 voice
1acc(5Nxt) = 5 votes = 2Nxt once to participate for ever = 1 account 5 voices
1acc(5milNxt) = 5mil votes = 2Nxt once to participate for ever = 1 account 5mil voices
What one can see from the above is that 1 Nxt = 1 vote is
i) Completely contrary to decentralisation of power.
ii) Favors account balance instead of community
iii) Provides reasonable motive to hoard currency, effectively taking it out of circulation
to the expense of the community.
iv) Links voting power with ones' wealth instead of ones' opinion and willingness to participate
If 1 acc = 1 vote then
1acc(1Nxt) = 1 vote = 2Nxt once to participate for ever = 1 account 1 voice
1acc(5Nxt) = 1 vote = 2Nxt once to participate for ever = 1 account 1 voice
1acc(5milNxt) = 1 vote = 2Nxt once to participate for ever = 1 account 1 voice
With the second method, 1acc = 1 vote we see the following
i) Decentralised voting power. One voice for each account regardless of account balance
ii) Favors community outreach
iii) If one were to create vote puppets, he can do it at a minimum cost. But if he does he will
kill 2Nxt with every account, thus provide profit for active nodes.
iv) Allows for low treshold to actively participate, and strengthens community.
Seems to me that in an anonymous environment we cannot guarantee that one vote will
be one voice. I'm not convinced though that there are not other options, in fact there
have been some interesting opinions like account age. I believe there are options open.
My proposition is this:
To take part in a vote one would have to have an account that would meet the following requirements:
1) Is in existence at least 12-36 months BEFORE taking part in a vote and in that time to have AT LEAST
one transaction. So it would have to be an active account that paid fees at least once.
2) Has a registered public key for AT LEAST 12-36 months before participating in a vote.
3) Has an alias registered AT LEAST 12-36 months before participating in a vote.
This would rise the cost of creating an account with voting ability to 3Nxt. If there is also
a cost of a message for the actual vote, then the cost for every voting account is 4Nxt.
with 1 voting acc at 4Nxt to participate we have the following:
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-
" 
).
Not going to give much attention to that whole spiel, but this here is just plain wrong: