Topic: NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information - page 1485. (Read 2761645 times)

Voting on issues that you basically don't care about, just for shits and giggles is extremely destructive though.
All voting systems have certain thresholds built in to keep them manageable.

If I make a vote about say, marketing (this is one of the things I know about) and 200 uninformed people vote based on knowledge that is incorrect or incomplete (and who also have no intention to inform themselves), then voting will die.

Putting up a moderate threshold, which will make people think before voting, will actually make the voting system work.

It should not be so restrictive that you can't vote, but it should be restrictive enough to discourage useless voting.

+tT2000

This won't last long.

Awesome. I just hope he doesn't water it down, the way he did few other coins.

Meanwhile, the price keeps rising and rising on Bter.

https://www.facebook.com/Bitcoinsnews 30k likes
Just posted an article regarding Nxt.
The post is titled
http://imgur.com/WrJ0cce
I asked "BitcoinChannel" about Nxt.
He'll be covering it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpMZ60t0PTI

The buzz is gonna be big.

America has perfected the pay per vote system

Please review my reasoning above. I am for account based voting, but we have to build account eligibility criterion. If we follow stake-based voting, we are not going to
survive the open source community. Rich-based voting is a dead sentence for community building and without community building you are not going to survive the open source community.

There are already NXT forks out there welcoming disfranchised NXT small acc owners. You can't prevent others copying NXT codes and make forks.

  

who made the flyer for nxt which is posted in a number of threads? its nice but...

it is a mortal sin to put the name "clone wars" and below it namecoin and peercoin. litecoin and feather deserve to be there but gee, nxt is using the innovative code (Pos) that was revolutionized by peercoin
and namecoin is a revolution by itself with rogue dns,smart contracts and other stuff.

don't turn nxt into a hoax by advertising mumbo jumbo

Or we go with account-age in coherence with stake? lol
So many possibilities so hard to figure out..
@Would give those longer involved with Nxt more power.

So long as the voting system won't ask one day for my clothes and motorcycle.

I am all ears!

Why in the world are we empowering people with no software experience to make software decisions?

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.

You say:
By making voting free people vote because they have no reason not to.

But voting is about engaging in a community[/b, taking part in the process. What you say is completely opposite by the idea of voting.

I have a solution that will allow almost complete fairness and can identify accounts being controlled by a singular user/group to change the result.

I think this  a perfect time to use weak artificial intelligence algorithms.

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.

haha , way to rub it in!!!

The other 10.000.000 could do the same so both has a fair chance. In game theory framework you arrive at a type of Prisoner's Dilemma game. The equilibrium is that both will try to divide the number of acct to the maximum and get an equal vote. If you add time and labor expense to the activity of acct division, then the equllibrium is that they both try to divide the number of acct to the maximum where the benefit of winning the vote = the time and labor expense.

Now since here we are talking about a community of >15000 accts instead of two person game. Let's see what happen when a big acc holder try to game the system and win the vote under acct based voting system. So the idea is that the big acct holder will try to make as many small accts as possible to have more votes. The more NXT the acc have, the more accs that the big stake holder can make. So in that situation we approach the system of the votes based on the number of NXT, or in other work we approach the system of voting based on stake.

It does not seem so bad for proponents of stake-based voting to me. And for acc- based voting proponents I can say the worst we could have is for the big stake holders to turn the voting into a stake-based one. But it would be costly for big stake holders to do that. Sound good to me.

Any flaws in this reasoning ? or should we focus on building the criterion of account eligibility instead ?

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?

I've known that one of the moderators supports FC's scam attempt. I've sent a PM to theymos to get his opinion, would be interesting to know his position...

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)


On the contrary, it is something that has to be there from the start. So that noone will have to find a way to avoid it during a poll.

Stating that "try to put limits on how much stake someone can use to vote than a whale will simply break his stake up into multiple accounts"
and that "1 vote per account than fraudsters will make a zillion accounts with one nxt each" so to counter that we should charge a vote
is equal to putting a gun in someones head. How can the thousands that only have one nxt participate?

I can see a lot of people here asking for votes to be paid, and for a veiled centralised committee.
I cannot understand any reason WHY does someone have to pay in order to vote. The only reason that makes sense to me is that we are actively trying to make people NOT vote. Then, like in our polls, only 40-50 people will vote, and we will call this "the community" and not "the ~50 that showed up"