Quote from: Damelon on January 20, 2014, 09:06:33 PM

Quote from: utopianfuture on January 20, 2014, 08:56:33 PM

Quote from: buybitcoinscanada on January 20, 2014, 08:42:42 PM

Quote from: okaynow on January 20, 2014, 08:28:32 PM

Quote from: Anon136 on January 20, 2014, 08:25:48 PM

Quote from: okaynow on January 20, 2014, 08:19:05 PM

Quote from: Anon136 on January 20, 2014, 08:03:42 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)

Quote from: Anon136 on January 20, 2014, 08:03:42 PM

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://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=422129.0 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 ?