Nextcoin users would probably oppose your idea. And they outnumber nxtcryoto users.
especially when one man has 70 nextcoin.org accounts 
Topic: NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information - page 1489. (Read 2761645 times)
Well some people just doesn't like the idea that some rich guys can buy their votes. That's enough of a reason for someone not joining the community.
I wasn't talking about "buying votes" in the sense that someone is paying you to vote the way they want.
I am talking about a bigger PoS holder relinquishing some of their stake (to all the other voters equally) to affect the outcome of a vote, however, understand that if they have no guaranteed way of actually benefiting from this, and if it costs them a fair % of their stake to do so do you really think that this is so likely to happen?
That is buying votes, imho.
Are you guys planning to make decisions regarding the continued development of this software through a voting system?
BCNext, Luc, CfB make decision on technical developments. The urgent issue needs to be worked on is the deployment of the common fund and the funding committee . Go
here to read more https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/nxt-voting-on-the-scope-of-authority-of-the-funding-committee-423241
Well some people just doesn't like the idea that some rich guys can buy their votes. That's enough of a reason for someone not joining the community.
I wasn't talking about "buying votes" in the sense that someone is paying you to vote the way they want.
I am talking about a bigger PoS holder relinquishing some of their stake (to all the other voters equally) to affect the outcome of a vote, however, understand that if they have no guaranteed way of actually benefiting from this, and if it costs them a fair % of their stake to do so do you really think that this is so likely to happen?
I would be very happy if you can devise a better way that actually works.
As suggested by Anon why not just set of 4 Nxt accounts and let people vote with their NXT (it is a PoS system after all)?
Then whatever Anon136's opinion happens to be is how the vote goes.
Not saying that he'd do that, but you see the circular logic here?
there are faucet cheaters who registered tons of accounts and stole few NXTs from faucets
Are you guys planning to make decisions regarding the continued development of this software through a voting system?
We are building a community here not a club of big stake holders. And if the small acc holders are leaving NXT, there won't be any money to support big-rich-stake holders.
If the rich stake holders are "paying" the smaller stake holders in order to "get their way" then aren't the smaller stake holders becoming bigger stake holders?
In PoS what matters is your *stake* so I think anything that helps increase small holders stake can't be a bad thing.
BTW - I am in no way a "big stake holder" so don't think that I am thinking about this "as a whale".
Well some people just doesn't like the idea that some rich guys can buy their votes. That's enough of a reason for someone not joining the community.
Probably best to have people vote with tokens and give their votes weight proportional to the stake. The advantage here is that whales will care more about the good of the network than profiting off some small time scam. So we can almost certainly count on the whales to vote with everyones best interest at heart.
I agree 100%. See my above post
.We should vote based on account only but there would be qualifications for eligible accounts: 1. seniority of accounts - have to be created before 1000 block for example
2. have a certain amount of NXT such as 1000.
Let me emphasize again: we can't have a rich-biased system in the open source community. Not going to survive.
Ok, this makes sense. Wouldn't want graviton to be able to swing every vote
. Is there a way to call the maturity of an account?EDIT: Also, is there a server open for API calls that is already up and running?
how can we make sure only Nxters are voting?
Edit: Account numbers as passwords to the site.
Edit: Account numbers as passwords to the site.
If you have a valid account, you're a nexter by definition.
No need for any passwords. Authorization token covers everything.
I prefer a separate voting site to using AM function. No need to bloat the blockchain and we can incorporate the voting site into the clients.
what about DDOS of the site? how to stop this?
how can we make sure only Nxters are voting?
Edit: Account numbers as passwords to the site.
Edit: Account numbers as passwords to the site.
If you have a valid account, you're a nexter by definition.
No need for any passwords. Authorization token covers everything.
I prefer a separate voting site to using AM function. No need to bloat the blockchain and we can incorporate the voting site into the clients.
We are building a community here not a club of big stake holders. And if the small acc holders are leaving NXT, there won't be any money to support big-rich-stake holders.
If the rich stake holders are "paying" the smaller stake holders in order to "get their way" then aren't the smaller stake holders becoming bigger stake holders?
In PoS what matters is your *stake* so I think anything that helps increase small holders stake can't be a bad thing.
BTW - I am in no way a "big stake holder" so don't think that I am thinking about this "as a whale".
RaspNXT - a standalone NXT environment for the Raspberry Pi
I just modified your run_nxt.sh to be more raspian frendly with some log messages and to enable system startup and stop.
kewl!
I had intentionally left the matter of starting/stopping the server open, so that people could decide themselves how they would like to do it. This seems like another good option for it.
That said, I am in fact planning on enhancing the package myself to a script that does all relevant things on any -nix system, not only the RPi.
The issue of voting have been discussed at length before. This type of voting is too much the rich biased for my taste.
If nxt system develops in that tendency, we are not going to survive in the open source community. Someone will just fork nxt codes and make it more egalitarian. Bad idea I would say. We have to let smaller accounts having a say.
If nxt system develops in that tendency, we are not going to survive in the open source community. Someone will just fork nxt codes and make it more egalitarian. Bad idea I would say. We have to let smaller accounts having a say.
I think if the votes resulted in better distribution of funds from the bigger stake holders then that could only be a good thing in the long term and if the large stake holders are stupid enough to vote for destructive things then they will have ended up destroying their own wealth in the process.
It doesn't matter big holders are wise or stupid. It is a matter of fair representation. Smaller acc holders could leave NXT for a fork if their voice cannot be heard and feel their votes do not matter.
We are building a community here not a club of big stake holders. And if the small acc holders are leaving NXT, there won't be any money to support big-rich-stake holders.
There would be a trade off here. The more you try to mitigate ignorant voting the more risk you have of corruption. It would probably be best to set the fee pretty low because in most cases ignorance cancels with ignorance on the opposite side of the issue.
I agree that the amount to be paid should not need to be more than 1 NXT but I also think that if the total amounts are to be redistributed evenly then someone throwing in a bunch of NXT basically is redistributing their stake as much as influencing the outcome (and if the outcome has only a % chance of directly benefiting them then unlikely they are going to pump that much into it).
Of course designing such a system is no trivial exercise but I think it could be interesting to try something like this out with Nxt.
Probably best to have people vote with tokens and give their votes weight proportional to the stake. The advantage here is that whales will care more about the good of the network than profiting off some small time scam. So we can almost certainly count on the whales to vote with everyones best interest at heart.
If you only have say a 1/4 chance of getting the bounty *despite* your investment then would you still take that risk?
Maybe not but before we get into an involved discussion about risks and crafting proper incentives, let me ask what is the advantage?
If the advantage is to help mitigate the problem of people voting on things they are ignorant about than i think that maybe the best way to deal with that would be a flat rate fee for submitting a token. Then we have only voters who legitimately care and no concern about people gaming the system.
There would be a trade off here. The more you try to mitigate ignorant voting the more risk you have of corruption. It would probably be best to set the fee pretty low because in most cases ignorance cancels with ignorance on the opposite side of the issue.
how can we make sure only Nxters are voting?
Edit: Account numbers as passwords to the site.
Edit: Account numbers as passwords to the site.
If you have a valid account, you're a nexter by definition.
No need for any passwords. Authorization token covers everything.
How are bitcoin protocol decisions being made at this point?
So you wouldn't use AM for this?
AM is too obscure and "techy". We need a nice, clean site with all the issues and votes on display.
There's also no reason to load blockchain, when it can be avoided.
Also, asking users to specify various addresses is just too confusing. It should be: came, saw a post, clicked a button, copy/pasted token, done.
how can we make sure only Nxters are voting?
Edit: Account numbers as passwords to the site.
Jump to: