Another 2 withdrawals disappeared into aether. Argh!
What global voting, what distributed exchange? Make what's already in there work first...
Topic: NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information - page 1788. (Read 2761645 times)
I tried to understand it couple of days ago, but I left the site after 10 mins because I was confused and still didn't understood it. So it's not made for me, right?
That main goal of that coin is to make the world better. I was born in USSR and I'm a communist on 99%.
Because hallmarked nodes are given priority over a normal node without a hallmark any day. And right now, a majority of nodes are controlled by a handful of people. I can set up 1000 nodes, but without a hallmark, most of the traffic will flow through hallmarked servers. So in the end, it was the stake that decided the outcome, not the action.
How VS in your eyes'll change situation like that to better one ? I was asking about that.I was just pointing out that nodes without weights (non-hallmarked. Hallmarking requires static IP, meaning VPS or dedicated server) will support the network, but the network will always trust a hallmarked node more. Recently, we have had zombie nodes attempting to spread false packets throughout the network, but hallmark makes it too expensive for them to truly attack the network in a large scale.
You seem to think that majority of stakeholders = majority of node owners. This is not the case. For example, I have my hallmark on one of ferment's VPS's. Are you saying that he get's my votes simply because I don't have a VPS that can be up 24/7 with a static IP? Are we going to require every user to sign up for their own VPS so they can have a voice? Voting is completely decentralized and every account will be accountable for their vote (because of their stake) so it is not possible to game the system. This seems fair to me.
I don't care about actual algo. I was talking about idea of voting.Voting in a decentralized network is consensus. I mean, it doesn't really get more decentralized than that... votes here can't be rigged and cannot be controlled, everyone has a say equal to their stake.
By specialists, if you means developers like BCNext, CfB and Luc, then they already plan to add voting feature. Why don't you do what you wrote here ? Let them decide ?
Ofc, something'll happen and I'm not going to stop anybody from coding any feature he wants to code. I'm just asking questions. For me it seems so opposite to whole pack of ideas in Nxt, so I concerned about one single feature: Global Voting. 
Why here: http://22k.io/account/3283108578452123518 all transactions have "Alias assignment" as recipient?
Can you shorten months to 3-letters? And sort transactions by timestamp with freshest on top?
Some In/Out icon would be nice too.
I added all of these. The icon isn't perfect but it's better than nothing!
Thanks!
I never liked the right/left arrows to represent in/out. Their initial interpretation depends on the direction of the reader's written language (think English vs Hebrew), and perhaps the viewer's concept of the flow-of-time -- where, in that person's mind, things in the past are experienced in relation to things in the future.
Perhaps something like these quick sketches might be clearer?
Edit: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.4373268 Damn, you're fast.
Let's apply your logic to the issue at hand: the voting system. You don't like it and I like it. Of course, you have supporters and and I also have supporters. So by your logic, developers should just implement the voting feature. If you and your supporters don't like it, just don't install it and don't vote. Isn't it that what you want ?
Or because you are so superior than me and the developers should just listen to what you say and ignore my request ?
At least if there is a voting system in place, you and your supporters can try to vote to disable that feature. That's what you should plan to do if you really want it, not by pleading to developers to ignore my request.
Or because you are so superior than me and the developers should just listen to what you say and ignore my request ?
At least if there is a voting system in place, you and your supporters can try to vote to disable that feature. That's what you should plan to do if you really want it, not by pleading to developers to ignore my request.
This is a very good argument.
Because hallmarked nodes are given priority over a normal node without a hallmark any day. And right now, a majority of nodes are controlled by a handful of people. I can set up 1000 nodes, but without a hallmark, most of the traffic will flow through hallmarked servers. So in the end, it was the stake that decided the outcome, not the action.
How VS in your eyes'll change situation like that to better one ? I was asking about that.You seem to think that majority of stakeholders = majority of node owners. This is not the case. For example, I have my hallmark on one of ferment's VPS's. Are you saying that he get's my votes simply because I don't have a VPS that can be up 24/7 with a static IP? Are we going to require every user to sign up for their own VPS so they can have a voice? Voting is completely decentralized and every account will be accountable for their vote (because of their stake) so it is not possible to game the system. This seems fair to me.
I don't care about actual algo. I was talking about idea of voting. I'm talking about voting without leaving the system.
Don't you see: it makes path to forcing part of community to follow some winner (center)?I can't lose in voting by actions. In worst case I'll die as free person.
Please, visit a website in my signature. That coin is for people like u.
I tried to understand it couple of days ago, but I left the site after 10 mins because I was confused and still didn't understood it. So it's not made for me, right?
I am not yet even sure what you, guys, are talking about
If it's what I think - a decentralized system, which would allow you to vote reliably on any subject - then it should be implemented simply because none exists.
Or is it something else?
We're talking about Global Voting. Some unclear built-in mechanism to make decisions based on amount of coins agreed to it. I see no real benefits, only risks. Hmm, to solve real problems it doesn't help. Coins =/= specialists. How to build strong system specialist'd decide, not masses, but if masses trust him, they'll use system. As simple as that.If it's what I think - a decentralized system, which would allow you to vote reliably on any subject - then it should be implemented simply because none exists.
Or is it something else?
Life is your "global voting".
By specialists, if you means developers like BCNext, CfB and Luc, then they already plan to add voting feature. Why don't you do what you wrote here ? Let them decide ?
Think more about your position before pleading your case. Right now it is just indefensible.
so without a voting system, we are actually more centralized.
How?! 
I can't get it really.Because hallmarked nodes are given priority over a normal node without a hallmark any day. And right now, a majority of nodes are controlled by a handful of people. I can set up 1000 nodes, but without a hallmark, most of the traffic will flow through hallmarked servers. So in the end, it was the stake that decided the outcome, not the action.
Lastly, without a voting system, what if there is a feature that a majority of stakeholders want, but the majority of node owners with hallmarks won't update their servers? This will only lead to a node-arms-race where people with the most money to set-up servers and hallmarks will win. This seems way worse than a simple 51+% vote to determine what the overall network wants.
If there's a feature majority of stakeholders want, they'd install it. But'd not forcing anyone to do anything for their own benefit. Convince node (small stakeholder, or provider) that feature benefit his too and network'll update.How forcing connects with decentralization?
You seem to think that majority of stakeholders = majority of node owners. This is not the case. For example, I have my hallmark on one of ferment's VPS's. Are you saying that he get's my votes simply because I don't have a VPS that can be up 24/7 with a static IP? Are we going to require every user to sign up for their own VPS so they can have a voice? Voting is completely decentralized and every account will be accountable for their vote (because of their stake) so it is not possible to game the system. This seems fair to me.
Why Nxt'd be different coin in that aspect? So far I see no solid arguments for Global Voting at first place.
Any problem wrote can be solved with natural acception/denial of new software by users: version 0.5.2, selling Aliases, nexern's client and even freezing accs sometimes in future. Why do implement Global Voting?
Who insists and why?
Any problem wrote can be solved with natural acception/denial of new software by users: version 0.5.2, selling Aliases, nexern's client and even freezing accs sometimes in future. Why do implement Global Voting?
Who insists and why?
Let's apply your logic to the issue at hand: the voting system. You don't like it and I like it. Of course, you have supporters and and I also have supporters. So by your logic, developers should just implement the voting feature. If you and your supporters don't like it, just don't install it and don't vote. Isn't it that what you want ?
Or because you are so superior than me and the developers should just listen to what you say and ignore my request ?
At least if there is a voting system in place, you and your supporters can try to vote to disable that feature. That's what you should plan to do if you really want it, not by pleading to developers to ignore my request.
Or because you are so superior than me and the developers should just listen to what you say and ignore my request ?
At least if there is a voting system in place, you and your supporters can try to vote to disable that feature. That's what you should plan to do if you really want it, not by pleading to developers to ignore my request.
Nice... I think you've just defeated him hands down
I'm talking about voting without leaving the system.
Don't you see: it makes path to forcing part of community to follow some winner (center)?I can't lose in voting by actions. In worst case I'll die as free person.
Please, visit a website in my signature. That coin is for people like u.
We're talking about Global Voting. Some unclear built-in mechanism to make decisions based on amount of coins agreed to it.
Then we need to clear it first, no point in arguing something vague
Coins =/= specialists. How to build strong system specialist'd decide, not masses, but if masses trust him, they'll use system. As simple as that.
Life is your "global voting".
Life is your "global voting".
Well, in general, I agree with you.
I'm talking about voting without leaving the system.
Don't you see: it makes path to forcing part of community to follow some winner (center)?I can't lose in voting by actions. In worst case I'll die as free person.
Voting is to bring out consensus.
Already brought. I'm missing the point. Each time any network exists = consensus of rules exists too. If it'll be lost, network'll disappear. No voting required, actions brings ut to consensus, nothing else. But global voting brings risks of centralization. Why it'd be implemented then? What problem can't be solved without it in your opinion?Let's apply your logic to the issue at hand: the voting system. You don't like it and I like it. Of course, you have supporters and and I also have supporters. So by your logic, developers should just implement the voting feature. If you and your supporters don't like it, just don't install it and don't vote. Isn't it that what you want ?
Or because you are so superior than me and the developers should just listen to what you say and ignore my request ?
At least if there is a voting system in place, you and your supporters can try to vote to disable that feature. That's what you should plan to do if you really want it, not by pleading to developers to ignore my request.
And that's way changings in basics of Nxt shouldn't be globally voted by coins.
There is no other way.
For example, I disagree with basics of Bitcoin, so I chose Nxt and it's can be view as voting in actions. Why any other mechanism'd be build?
I'm talking about voting without leaving the system.
And that's way changings in basics of Nxt shouldn't be globally voted by coins.
There is no other way.
For example, I disagree with basics of Bitcoin, so I chose Nxt and it's can be view as voting in actions. Why any other mechanism'd be build?
Number of zombie nodes became much smaller. Is it only me or others see the same picture?
Zombies are probably working on a new deadly plan
I am not yet even sure what you, guys, are talking about
If it's what I think - a decentralized system, which would allow you to vote reliably on any subject - then it should be implemented simply because none exists.
Or is it something else?
We're talking about Global Voting. Some unclear built-in mechanism to make decisions based on amount of coins agreed to it. I see no real benefits, only risks. Hmm, to solve real problems it doesn't help. Coins =/= specialists. How to build strong system specialist'd decide, not masses, but if masses trust him, they'll use system. As simple as that.If it's what I think - a decentralized system, which would allow you to vote reliably on any subject - then it should be implemented simply because none exists.
Or is it something else?
Life is your "global voting".
Jump to: