May it be possible to craft and algorithm that connects coins into groups that belong to the same person?
Imagine your voting power depends on the third or higher square root of your holdings, meaning that someone with 1000NXT has 10 Votes compared to someone with a single NXT who has 1 Vote.
It's a tradeoff, but seems like a rather fair alternative.
The problem is of course, that someone could just spread out his coins to get more votes. Too bad.
So, what about the thing mentioned above. Some sort of Blockchain crawler trying to put coins into probability groups which voting power is calculated in a way similar to the above.
So, if 1000 coins are decided to belong to the same group with a 90% probability and all of them vote for the same result, they are counted as 10 Votes.
Topic: NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information - page 1484. (Read 2761645 times)
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.
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.
+1 we just have to accept that wealthier individuals are going to have more voting power. dont try to fight it.
No we don't. Why do we have to accept it?? It can just as easily be implemented without costs, please explain why does a vote has to be paid by the voters. (honest question, not trolling)
The only reason that makes sense to me is that we are actively trying to make people NOT vote
Yes thats exactly right. Not everyone should vote about everything. Someone who doesnt understand anything about the protocol should not be voting on issues relating to changes to the protocol. By making voting free people vote because they have no reason not to and you get ignorant voters voting on issues they know nothing about. by adding a cost people will only vote on something they actually care about which will tend to be things that they actually KNOW something about.
But then, if not everyone is supposed to vote, why have the vote, and the poll, and the community outreach in the first place?
If not everyone should vote, we don't need a voting mechanism at all.
If you're going to cherry pick who should and should not vote then its not decentralized or democratic or even useful to have the mechanism. You may as well do personal interviews on a case by case basis, lol. Those with the most stake should have the most weight in there votes as they have the most to lose. Plain and simple. Any attempts to craft a system where the stake is not the basis for voting weight will just be "abused" and have the same outcome and in fact I view this as less fair anyways. If you want to make technical changes to the network that a large holder may not understand then it is your job to educate them along with stakeholders of any size so they can make an informed decision.
Well just let me be direct here. If you guys want to keep the rich-based voting and makes NXT rich guys club. I am going to make a fork as soon as I can. It is open source
community after all. I already have a thread going here https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ann-nem-4-billions-coins-part-1-this-thread-is-no-longer-used-422129 and I have several million NXT in funding. Someone is going to do it
anyway so I will do it first when my millions of NXT still have some values.
Somehow I think we are getting off track in the discussion here.
The way I read it is that you want voters who actually care about the issues that are voted upon.
The discussion revolves on how to make that happen.
I couldn't care less if that meant that everyone had equal opportunities to vote. The issue seems to be you want interest, and not "shit and giggles" votes, as that basically renders the voting system unusuable.
The fact that big stakeholders happen to be the ones with the most to lose just means that. It's a tautological statement: "I have a lot, so can lose a lot. Therefore I have a big interest in any vote".
The part that is missing, I think, is that we fail to involve the smaller stakes at this moment. If we say that a small stakeholder has less to lose and is thus less involved, we miss an important aspect of the whole equation, which is community.
So, how to involve, appreciate the smaller stakes in such a system? It would be great if everyone has an intrinsic motivation, but in my experience, that is just not the case in real life, mostly.
Edit: what am I missing?
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.
The first option is not going to work for long. Because as I said we are in open source community.
Think about bitcoin. Do you really think bitcoin succeed because it has a superior technology ?
Well just let me be direct here. If you guys want to keep the rich-based voting and makes NXT rich guys club. I am going to make a fork as soon as I can. It is open source
community after all. I already have a thread going here https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ann-nem-4-billions-coins-part-1-this-thread-is-no-longer-used-422129 and I have several million NXT in funding. Someone is going to do it
anyway so I will do it first when my millions of NXT still have some values.
community after all. I already have a thread going here https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ann-nem-4-billions-coins-part-1-this-thread-is-no-longer-used-422129 and I have several million NXT in funding. Someone is going to do it
anyway so I will do it first when my millions of NXT still have some values.
Err... U shouldn't do it, there r a few traps left for guys who want to start a fork with another genesis block. At least make sure that noone puts real money into ur coin if u don't want to be accused as a scammer.
anyone here that want to buy some NXT with moneybookers?
i need some fiat , would sell 10k nxt
PS only to trustful members...
i need some fiat , would sell 10k nxt
PS only to trustful members...
sent you a PM
+1 we just have to accept that wealthier individuals are going to have more voting power. dont try to fight it.
No we don't. Why do we have to accept it?? It can just as easily be implemented without costs, please explain why does a vote has to be paid by the voters. (honest question, not trolling)
The only reason that makes sense to me is that we are actively trying to make people NOT vote
Yes thats exactly right. Not everyone should vote about everything. Someone who doesnt understand anything about the protocol should not be voting on issues relating to changes to the protocol. By making voting free people vote because they have no reason not to and you get ignorant voters voting on issues they know nothing about. by adding a cost people will only vote on something they actually care about which will tend to be things that they actually KNOW something about.
But then, if not everyone is supposed to vote, why have the vote, and the poll, and the community outreach in the first place?
If not everyone should vote, we don't need a voting mechanism at all.
If you're going to cherry pick who should and should not vote then its not decentralized or democratic or even useful to have the mechanism. You may as well do personal interviews on a case by case basis, lol. Those with the most stake should have the most weight in there votes as they have the most to lose. Plain and simple. Any attempts to craft a system where the stake is not the basis for voting weight will just be "abused" and have the same outcome and in fact I view this as less fair anyways. If you want to make technical changes to the network that a large holder may not understand then it is your job to educate them along with stakeholders of any size so they can make an informed decision.
Well just let me be direct here. If you guys want to keep the rich-based voting and makes NXT rich guys club. I am going to make a fork as soon as I can. It is open source
community after all. I already have a thread going here https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ann-nem-4-billions-coins-part-1-this-thread-is-no-longer-used-422129 and I have several million NXT in funding. Someone is going to do it
anyway so I will do it first when my millions of NXT still have some values.
Somehow I think we are getting off track in the discussion here.
The way I read it is that you want voters who actually care about the issues that are voted upon.
The discussion revolves on how to make that happen.
I couldn't care less if that meant that everyone had equal opportunities to vote. The issue seems to be you want interest, and not "shit and giggles" votes, as that basically renders the voting system unusuable.
The fact that big stakeholders happen to be the ones with the most to lose just means that. It's a tautological statement: "I have a lot, so can lose a lot. Therefore I have a big interest in any vote".
The part that is missing, I think, is that we fail to involve the smaller stakes at this moment. If we say that a small stakeholder has less to lose and is thus less involved, we miss an important aspect of the whole equation, which is community.
So, how to involve, appreciate the smaller stakes in such a system? It would be great if everyone has an intrinsic motivation, but in my experience, that is just not the case in real life, mostly.
Edit: what am I missing?
anyone here that want to buy some NXT with moneybookers?
i need some fiat , would sell 10k nxt
PS only to trustful members...
i need some fiat , would sell 10k nxt
PS only to trustful members...
So there should be votes, but not all are meant to vote.
The ones that are meant to vote, are not the ones with the knowledge on the subject being voted, but the ones with the big wallet.
That is a sound plan to some..
i am coming to the conclusion that a lot of people are reading "stakeholder" and think of "shareholder"...
This is not a corporation.
Why don't we try to find solutions as a community and not as a Board of Trustees?
The ones that are meant to vote, are not the ones with the knowledge on the subject being voted, but the ones with the big wallet.
That is a sound plan to some..
i am coming to the conclusion that a lot of people are reading "stakeholder" and think of "shareholder"...
This is not a corporation.
Why don't we try to find solutions as a community and not as a Board of Trustees?
These people are so short-sighted. It is open source software for GOD's sake. You are not holding APPLE stocks. If you guys make NXT a rich guy club, then you are killing NXT
the chance to be a real social movement.
Unless you can protect the software indefinitely. Think about it.
So there should be votes, but not all are meant to vote.
The ones that are meant to vote, are not the ones with the knowledge on the subject being voted, but the ones with the big wallet.
That is a sound plan to some..
i am coming to the conclusion that a lot of people are reading "stakeholder" and think of "shareholder"...
This is not a corporation.
Why don't we try to find solutions as a community and not as a Board of Trustees?
The ones that are meant to vote, are not the ones with the knowledge on the subject being voted, but the ones with the big wallet.
That is a sound plan to some..
i am coming to the conclusion that a lot of people are reading "stakeholder" and think of "shareholder"...
This is not a corporation.
Why don't we try to find solutions as a community and not as a Board of Trustees?
Besides, from a logical point of view a person who owns a lot of NXT deserves to have "more of a say" in any voting mechanism.
Can you logically elaborate on that ?? It sounds completely irrational and feudal to me. so 10th Century..
Why does a whale have more saying than a tuna? Are they not swimming in the same waters?
Yes my explanation is in the part of my sentence you cut off:
Besides, from a logical point of view a person who owns a lot of NXT deserves to have "more of a say" in any voting mechanism since the outcome will affect his holding more than someone who owns 100NXT.
That is not an explanation, that is your point of view.
please explain why does a bigger wallet has to have more saying than a small wallet.
No it's your point of view that it's not explanation. It's a fact that a person who owns more NXT gets affected more by any decision regarding NXT. If the decision has a positive outcome the person with more NXT will gain more from the decision. If the decision has a negative outcome on NXT value, the person with more NXT loses more. I suggest debating with actual logic to make your argument rather than dismissing things without discussion.
Besides, from a logical point of view a person who owns a lot of NXT deserves to have "more of a say" in any voting mechanism.
Can you logically elaborate on that ?? It sounds completely irrational and feudal to me. so 10th Century..
Why does a whale have more saying than a tuna? Are they not swimming in the same waters?
Yes my explanation is in the part of my sentence you cut off:
Besides, from a logical point of view a person who owns a lot of NXT deserves to have "more of a say" in any voting mechanism since the outcome will affect his holding more than someone who owns 100NXT.
That is not an explanation, that is your point of view.
please explain why does a bigger wallet has to have more saying than a small wallet.
because it does NOT make sence to make it otherwise. There will always be an incentive to just split your holdings to the optimal size to increase your voting power then....
I already explained here https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.4627039
+1 we just have to accept that wealthier individuals are going to have more voting power. dont try to fight it.
No we don't. Why do we have to accept it?? It can just as easily be implemented without costs, please explain why does a vote has to be paid by the voters. (honest question, not trolling)
The only reason that makes sense to me is that we are actively trying to make people NOT vote
Yes thats exactly right. Not everyone should vote about everything. Someone who doesnt understand anything about the protocol should not be voting on issues relating to changes to the protocol. By making voting free people vote because they have no reason not to and you get ignorant voters voting on issues they know nothing about. by adding a cost people will only vote on something they actually care about which will tend to be things that they actually KNOW something about.
But then, if not everyone is supposed to vote, why have the vote, and the poll, and the community outreach in the first place?
If not everyone should vote, we don't need a voting mechanism at all.
If you're going to cherry pick who should and should not vote then its not decentralized or democratic or even useful to have the mechanism. You may as well do personal interviews on a case by case basis, lol. Those with the most stake should have the most weight in there votes as they have the most to lose. Plain and simple. Any attempts to craft a system where the stake is not the basis for voting weight will just be "abused" and have the same outcome and in fact I view this as less fair anyways. If you want to make technical changes to the network that a large holder may not understand then it is your job to educate them along with stakeholders of any size so they can make an informed decision.
Well just let me be direct here. If you guys want to keep the rich-based voting and makes NXT rich guys club. I am going to make a fork as soon as I can. It is open source
community after all. I already have a thread going here https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ann-nem-4-billions-coins-part-1-this-thread-is-no-longer-used-422129 and I have several million NXT in funding. Someone is going to do it
anyway so I will do it first when my millions of NXT still have some values.
Besides, from a logical point of view a person who owns a lot of NXT deserves to have "more of a say" in any voting mechanism.
Can you logically elaborate on that ?? It sounds completely irrational and feudal to me. so 10th Century..
Why does a whale have more saying than a tuna? Are they not swimming in the same waters?
Yes my explanation is in the part of my sentence you cut off:
Besides, from a logical point of view a person who owns a lot of NXT deserves to have "more of a say" in any voting mechanism since the outcome will affect his holding more than someone who owns 100NXT.
That is not an explanation, that is your point of view.
please explain why does a bigger wallet has to have more saying than a small wallet.
because it does NOT make sence to make it otherwise. There will always be an incentive to just split your holdings to the optimal size to increase your voting power then....
Besides, from a logical point of view a person who owns a lot of NXT deserves to have "more of a say" in any voting mechanism.
Can you logically elaborate on that ?? It sounds completely irrational and feudal to me. so 10th Century..
Why does a whale have more saying than a tuna? Are they not swimming in the same waters?
Yes my explanation is in the part of my sentence you cut off:
Besides, from a logical point of view a person who owns a lot of NXT deserves to have "more of a say" in any voting mechanism since the outcome will affect his holding more than someone who owns 100NXT.
That is not an explanation, that is your point of view.
please explain why does a bigger wallet has to have more saying than a small wallet.
Do you guys also think that a company that has 100.000 Stakeholders, but 50 of them make up 51%, has no good decision finding system?
The big stakeholders WILL care IF they vote. They have the most to lose.
The big stakeholders WILL care IF they vote. They have the most to lose.
Besides, from a logical point of view a person who owns a lot of NXT deserves to have "more of a say" in any voting mechanism.
Can you logically elaborate on that ?? It sounds completely irrational and feudal to me. so 10th Century..
Why does a whale have more saying than a tuna? Are they not swimming in the same waters?
Yes my explanation is in the part of my sentence you cut off:
Besides, from a logical point of view a person who owns a lot of NXT deserves to have "more of a say" in any voting mechanism since the outcome will affect his holding more than someone who owns 100NXT.
Well, if it's only going to take that long then I probably shouldn't bother; http://nxtra.org/voting/add.php (unfinished...)
Hey, that's looking good!
--
Can we read somewhere about this built-in voting system? If it's good then there is indeed no point in building a site.
My guess is that we could combine a site like wesleyh's on top of the built in API for voting. doesn't that make the most sense? I don't want to slow down client development with adding VS until after initial release. No sense in reinventing the wheel, so a website front end to VS API is what I recommend
James
I think this a perfect time to use weak artificial intelligence algorithms.
So long as the voting system won't ask one day for my clothes and motorcycle.
...not sure about nexern's distributed nxt agents
but the fact that i have a big wallet does not guarrantee that i have an understanding of the subject we are voting on.
Besides, from a logical point of view a person who owns a lot of NXT deserves to have "more of a say" in any voting mechanism.
Can you logically elaborate on that ?? It sounds completely irrational and feudal to me. so 10th Century..
Why does a whale have more saying than a tuna? Are they not swimming in the same waters?
An old saying says that your heart goes where your treasure goes. The more stake you have the more you care.
We can set two voting schemes for each vote and each motion has to pass both to get validated:
1) 50%+ of stake majority for approval
2) 60%+ of account majority for veto
Jump to: