I think the question was within the context of Nxt itself - my understanding is that changes to the protocol or other things that could greatly affect the stakeholders would be subject to a vote.
Topic: NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information - page 1653. (Read 2761645 times)
I think the question was within the context of Nxt itself - my understanding is that changes to the protocol or other things that could greatly affect the stakeholders would be subject to a vote.
I think the question was within the context of Nxt itself - my understanding is that changes to the protocol or other things that could greatly affect the stakeholders would be subject to a vote.
I think it could but it does require a bit of "thinking outside of the box" - I could envision some sort of decentralised online *game* which you have to play in order to vote (you only get to vote when you finish the game).
If you limit the time window (and make the game something that might take an hour or so to complete) then I think you'd get close to 1 vote per person (you'll never get it 100% right).
If you limit the time window (and make the game something that might take an hour or so to complete) then I think you'd get close to 1 vote per person (you'll never get it 100% right).
Even this could be subverted by those with deep pockets as longs as there are people willing to get paid to do HIT work:
https://requester.mturk.com/
It's really a question of whether a "democracy" is what is wanted or whether instead it should just be the largest stakeholders that make the decisions.
Maybe a better way is to simply *pay* for a vote - so if you want to vote 10K times it costs you 10K NXT (with the funds being used on whatever is being voted for I guess).
Maybe a better way is to simply *pay* for a vote - so if you want to vote 10K times it costs you 10K NXT (with the funds being used on whatever is being voted for I guess).
Paying per vote will also favor deep pockets. I suspect if voting was implemented by what may essentially be a poll tax, it would discourage all but the wealthiest from voting. Being poor is costly.
Voting based on 1 vote per 1 account is easily gamed. For example if I want a weight of 500 votes, I can spend only 1000 NXT to set 500 accounts up. This can be done automatically with a little work on a shell script and curl.
Also, I fear voting weighted by PoS may drown out all but the wealthiest. Pooling votes/proxy voting, as Jack Needles suggested, may be a workable answer here.
Sometimes, there just isn't a good fair answer to a problem -- but only a "fairest" answer. I think votes weighted by PoS, as much as I don't like it, may be the fairest within a PoS system like Nxt.
Ethereum just killed NXT.
Same with all the others.
Same with all the others.
A POW inflationary coin, hardly.
Actually there is a maximum amount. It just takes longer to mine them all, however there is a limit. Inflation also trends to zero.
What is the maximum? I hope Ethereum is successful, alt coins can co-exist, this isn't Highlander. Also, the name is terrible, and the POW will ultimately kill the project.
Haha, nevermind, just saw there are 1.2 Trillion Ethereums, all at the cheap price of 10k per 1BTC, what an insane ripoff. At least projects like eMu will pay you interest on your holdings. The creator is 19 years old, hence the WOW reference. Also, let me get this right, it's a POW, with a pre-sale IPO? Glad I did a little research before wasting a BTC.
Why is there even a discussion? This is a POS currency, that says it is a 100% POS currency, now people want to game the POS system? lol@game playing, that is basically POW and the reason i prefer this coin over others.
1 NXT = 1 Vote but we should include a 0.01% Fee on voting (1 FEE or 0.01% whatever is higher)
1 NXT = 1 Vote but we should include a 0.01% Fee on voting (1 FEE or 0.01% whatever is higher)
For some people it's not a problem to create 100 000 accounts just for voting. Also I hate the idea 1 person - 1 vote.
I was thinking of doing something like that:
1 Nxt - 1 Vote
100 Nxt - 100 Votes
1000 Nxt - 800 Votes
10 000 Nxt -7000 Votes
100 000 Nxt - 60 000 Votes
1 000 000 Nxt - 500 000 Votes
5 000 000 Nxt - 4 000 000 Votes
10 000 000 Nxt - 6 000 000 Votes
I was thinking of doing something like that:
1 Nxt - 1 Vote
100 Nxt - 100 Votes
1000 Nxt - 800 Votes
10 000 Nxt -7000 Votes
100 000 Nxt - 60 000 Votes
1 000 000 Nxt - 500 000 Votes
5 000 000 Nxt - 4 000 000 Votes
10 000 000 Nxt - 6 000 000 Votes
The same problem still exists, except now people will split their stash into holdings of 100 NXT each to get an advantage over those who don't. Eventually everyone will have to do so if they want their voice to be equal.
In terms of voting, I appreciate what you're trying to do with a 1 person == 1 vote, but... well... it just won't work.
It really has to be Proof of Stake: 1 NXT == 1 Vote. Any other system WILL be gamed, and will not represent the collective interest of the NXT community.
Think of it like a stockholder voting in a typical corporation. You own one share, you get one vote. Except here, NXT is your stock.
Perhaps a proxy voting system could be implemented to help smaller stakeholders pool their collective votes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_voting.
I bet a bunch of smaller stakeholders banded together would be a formidable block.
It really has to be Proof of Stake: 1 NXT == 1 Vote. Any other system WILL be gamed, and will not represent the collective interest of the NXT community.
Think of it like a stockholder voting in a typical corporation. You own one share, you get one vote. Except here, NXT is your stock.
Perhaps a proxy voting system could be implemented to help smaller stakeholders pool their collective votes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_voting.
I bet a bunch of smaller stakeholders banded together would be a formidable block.
I agree, in PoS the only guarantee of identity is the coins themselves. So any system to equalize the power between large holders vs. small holders has to be based on this concept. Any type of weird log scaling or per account voting will in fact cause those with large holdings to gain an unequal advantage over smaller holdings (as I mentioned before, a large holder can afford more transactions fees to send NXT to a large number of accounts. A small holder cannot.)
In terms of voting, I appreciate what you're trying to do with a 1 person == 1 vote, but... well... it just won't work.
I think it could but it does require a bit of "thinking outside of the box" - I could envision some sort of decentralised online *game* which you have to play in order to vote (you only get to vote when you finish the game).
If you limit the time window (and make the game something that might take an hour or so to complete) then I think you'd get close to 1 vote per person (you'll never get it 100% right).
It's really a question of whether a "democracy" is what is wanted or whether instead it should just be the largest stakeholders that make the decisions.
Maybe a better way is to simply *pay* for a vote - so if you want to vote 10K times it costs you 10K NXT (with the funds being used on whatever is being voted for I guess).
Yes, a solution that is not vulnerable to a large holder simply dividing his stake up (this means scaling and per-account voting are out) would be ideal. However, one issue I can see with the "game" method is that you can have a bunch of people with a lot of time on their hands given disproportionately large voting power. People who are busy, like the people developing clients, exchanges, services, etc. won't have as much time to play the game, thus have less voting power.
EDIT: The only truly fair way that I can think of currently is 1 NXT = 1 vote.
Can someone explain in plain terms what this "voting" is for?
In terms of voting, I appreciate what you're trying to do with a 1 person == 1 vote, but... well... it just won't work.
I think it could but it does require a bit of "thinking outside of the box" - I could envision some sort of decentralised online *game* which you have to play in order to vote (you only get to vote when you finish the game).
If you limit the time window (and make the game something that might take an hour or so to complete) then I think you'd get close to 1 vote per person (you'll never get it 100% right).
It's really a question of whether a "democracy" is what is wanted or whether instead it should just be the largest stakeholders that make the decisions.
Maybe a better way is to simply *pay* for a vote - so if you want to vote 10K times it costs you 10K NXT (with the funds being used on whatever is being voted for I guess).
Yeah, I think in the end it's best if it's 1 Nxt - 1 Vote, keep it simple.
Ehm, sorry but did I miss something? Don't we SPEND nxt to vote?
Say I have 1M NXT, and I just looove to show off and get influence, so I send 1M votes - now I have…… 0 NXT left on my acc?
Say I have 1M NXT, and I just looove to show off and get influence, so I send 1M votes - now I have…… 0 NXT left on my acc?
In terms of voting, I appreciate what you're trying to do with a 1 person == 1 vote, but... well... it just won't work.
I think it could but it does require a bit of "thinking outside of the box" - I could envision some sort of decentralised online *game* which you have to play in order to vote (you only get to vote when you finish the game).
If you limit the time window (and make the game something that might take an hour or so to complete) then I think you'd get close to 1 vote per person (you'll never get it 100% right).
It's really a question of whether a "democracy" is what is wanted or whether instead it should just be the largest stakeholders that make the decisions.
Maybe a better way is to simply *pay* for a vote - so if you want to vote 10K times it costs you 10K NXT (with the funds being used on whatever is being voted for I guess).
Edit: Or maybe even, 1 Account = 1 Vote but it costs 1NXT per account to vote.
Hard to say how well that would work but I think charging to vote could be a reasonable idea - another idea that could work would be to enforce some sort of "manual work" (such as solving a Captcha) for each vote (so you might be able to split up your funds into many accounts easily enough but you'd have to spend perhaps hours and hours solving Captchas to *use* those votes).
The more cost and effort to vote the less likely people are going to do it multiple times (imagine if you had to run or walk 10km per vote).
Yeah, I would say one vote per account with at least 10 Nxt and 1 Alias.
It won't work. I personally have 6 accounts with balance greater than 100 and 4 of them have aliases.
I like the idea of running 5 miles per vote though.
Ethereum just killed NXT.
Same with all the others.
Same with all the others.
A POW inflationary coin, hardly.
Actually there is a maximum amount. It just takes longer to mine them all, however there is a limit. Inflation also trends to zero.
What is the maximum? I hope Ethereum is successful, alt coins can co-exist, this isn't Highlander. Also, the name is terrible, and the POW will ultimately kill the project.
Edit: Or maybe even, 1 Account = 1 Vote but it costs 1NXT per account to vote.
Hard to say how well that would work but I think charging to vote could be a reasonable idea - another idea that could work would be to enforce some sort of "manual work" (such as solving a Captcha) for each vote (so you might be able to split up your funds into many accounts easily enough but you'd have to spend perhaps hours and hours solving Captchas to *use* those votes).
The more cost and effort to vote the less likely people are going to do it multiple times (imagine if you had to run or walk 10km per vote).
Yeah, I would say one vote per account with at least 10 Nxt and 1 Alias.
Ethereum just killed NXT.
Same with all the others.
Same with all the others.
It's 2013. PoW is no match to PoS. Face it, within PoS there's competition; everything else is just blackberrying its way out of existence.
Ethereum just killed NXT.
Same with all the others.
Same with all the others.
A POW inflationary coin, hardly.
Actually there is a maximum amount. It just takes longer to mine them all, however there is a limit. Inflation also trends to zero.
Edit: Or maybe even, 1 Account = 1 Vote but it costs 1NXT per account to vote.
Hard to say how well that would work but I think charging to vote could be a reasonable idea - another idea that could work would be to enforce some sort of "manual work" (such as solving a Captcha) for each vote (so you might be able to split up your funds into many accounts easily enough but you'd have to spend perhaps hours and hours solving Captchas to *use* those votes).
The more cost and effort to vote the less likely people are going to do it multiple times (imagine if you had to run or walk 10km per vote).
Ethereum just killed NXT.
Same with all the others.
Same with all the others.
A POW inflationary coin, hardly.
So much hype - similar to the way Mastercoin was launched
Ethereum just killed NXT.
Same with all the others.
Same with all the others.
A POW inflationary coin, hardly.
Cross posted from: https://forums.nxtcrypto.org/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=530&p=2612#p2612
My thoughts on how to count votes.
Personally I think the most democratic way is 1 Account = 1 Vote, regardless of your wealth (amount of NXT). Sure someone could create multiple accounts to have more votes but since it costs NXT to send NXT to other accounts, you couldn't do this for long without going broke.
Imagine I have 10,000 NXT. I can't create 10,000 accounts. At most I could create 5,000. Since if I send 1NXT to 5,000 accounts it costs me 5,000 NXT in transaction fees just to do so. If I want those NXT all back in one account (to increase ability to forge) then I can create even less accounts since I will incur a transaction fee to send NXT from those dummy accounts back to my main account.
This can actually work well early on since it may help to distribute NXT even more.
Another way to prevent the creation of dummy voting accounts would be to have a rule that NXT must remain in an account for a certain number of blocks before a vote to be counted as a valid voting account. Or say for example if a vote comes up at block 45,000 for example, only accounts that have a balance as of block 45,000 are counted for voting.
I think the coolest part about the voting is that we can use the voting system to tweak the voting system as time goes on. We could come up with all sorts of complex algorithms in the future once we see what the NXT ecosystem looks like.
Any ideas?
Edit: Or maybe even, 1 Account = 1 Vote but it costs 1NXT per account to vote.
My thoughts on how to count votes.
Personally I think the most democratic way is 1 Account = 1 Vote, regardless of your wealth (amount of NXT). Sure someone could create multiple accounts to have more votes but since it costs NXT to send NXT to other accounts, you couldn't do this for long without going broke.
Imagine I have 10,000 NXT. I can't create 10,000 accounts. At most I could create 5,000. Since if I send 1NXT to 5,000 accounts it costs me 5,000 NXT in transaction fees just to do so. If I want those NXT all back in one account (to increase ability to forge) then I can create even less accounts since I will incur a transaction fee to send NXT from those dummy accounts back to my main account.
This can actually work well early on since it may help to distribute NXT even more.
Another way to prevent the creation of dummy voting accounts would be to have a rule that NXT must remain in an account for a certain number of blocks before a vote to be counted as a valid voting account. Or say for example if a vote comes up at block 45,000 for example, only accounts that have a balance as of block 45,000 are counted for voting.
I think the coolest part about the voting is that we can use the voting system to tweak the voting system as time goes on. We could come up with all sorts of complex algorithms in the future once we see what the NXT ecosystem looks like.
Any ideas?
Edit: Or maybe even, 1 Account = 1 Vote but it costs 1NXT per account to vote.
For some people it's not a problem to create 100 000 accounts just for voting. Also I hate the idea 1 person - 1 vote.
I was thinking of doing something like that:
1 Nxt - 1 Vote
100 Nxt - 100 Votes
1000 Nxt - 800 Votes
10 000 Nxt -7000 Votes
100 000 Nxt - 60 000 Votes
1 000 000 Nxt - 500 000 Votes
5 000 000 Nxt - 4 000 000 Votes
10 000 000 Nxt - 6 000 000 Votes
Jump to: