Quote from: Jcsarokin on January 20, 2014, 10:40:10 PM

Quote from: smartwart on January 20, 2014, 10:29:06 PM

Quote from: smartwart on January 15, 2014, 09:57:36 AM

ahh Voting!
one of my favorite discussions ;-)

Currently read many good aspects here!
I think we need to consider most of them in beta Client.
More and more it becomes clear that there is not THE ONE way for VS.
But there are different poll-categories, e.g "assets-polls" is different category as "best button color-polls".

The poll initiator should be able to choose boundary conditions depending on poll-topic.
The poll boundary conditions need to be transparent during run time.
To be more constructive lets try to collect some "Voting Models":

general options:
- min. permitted Account Deposit
- min. permitted Account age (Blocks)
- poll duration (Blocks)
- Voting Fee

Voting Models
- 1 NXT == 1 Vote { vote = Func(accountBalance) }
- 1 Account == 1 Vote { vote = Func(accountBalance) = 0.5 * accountBalance}
- 1 NXT == x Vote { x = Func(accountBalance) = polynom * accountBalance}

no claim to completeness!

We need to discuss selection options too:
[true] [false] [abstention]
I think [abstention] provides an important information too.
E.g. a high count of [abstention] tells the poll creator "interesting question buddy, but not this way!!!" ...

Please extent the "general options" and "voting models" ideas!!!
It makes sense to collect all to keep the overview.

The discussion about "selection options" was already started by Anon136 and CIYAM...

What do you think about this idea for decentralized voting using biometric verification (voting @ the bottom): http://juliansarokin.com/100-years-the-future-of-government/

I think you point this to 'one user one account' issue for voting.
was just scrolling down your web page, interesting topic, need to think about (its late;-).

Biometrics are an issue if you need to identify a person for authorization.
Thats why spontaneous, I would connect this more to J-L's "hive" topic.
This would bring the synergy to implement an account<=>biometric identity connection and would be an enabler for something like this.

Don't sure about the effort to implement into protocol.
- I think its not an client issue?