Quote from: pandaisftw on January 27, 2014, 01:31:06 AM

Quote from: ChuckOne on January 26, 2014, 11:55:24 PM

Quote from: pandaisftw on January 26, 2014, 11:44:50 PM

Quote from: ChuckOne on January 26, 2014, 11:22:14 PM

Quote from: Passion_ltc on January 26, 2014, 11:11:49 PM

Quote from: ChuckOne on January 26, 2014, 10:59:53 PM

Quote from: Passion_ltc on January 26, 2014, 08:01:41 PM

Quote from: Komputor on January 26, 2014, 07:31:55 PM

Quote from: Passion_ltc on January 26, 2014, 07:25:48 PM

The more NXT someone has, the more right he has to decide. It's natural. Someone with 50% ownership on a company has a 50% right to decide something..

It's so easy. So why do you fighting over this so much?

I agree too, but this is only under the assumption that large stakeholders will always do things in the best interest of the currency's growth and health. However, I am sure at some point there could be large NXT stakeholders that would vote for something just not acceptable by a majority of the community and it would be interesting to see how that would play out in the actual decision making process.

Well, they are the majority. So let it be.

They're not the majority. That's the point here.

They are. If you have 50$ and the other guy 1$ then you have the majority of wealth. So you are should be allowed to say more.

Fortunately, our democratic systems do not work this way (not yet, I fear).

You should be allowed to say more if you spend more of you wealth:
Say, if you spend 1/10 of your wealth it's more than if somebody spend 1/10000 of theirs. It appears it's not so important to them.

NXT is an economic ecosystem, not a state. In PoS 1 NXT is equivalent to 1 person (like SSN, birth certificate, or whatever) because this is the only way to truly account for the validity of each NXT, so 1 NXT = 1 Vote. All other methods will be gamed by the rich to make the poor poorer. For example, using 1 account = 1 Vote, a large stakeholder can create 10k accounts easily, while a small stakeholder will go broke doing it. No matter what you do, the rich can always afford more accounts than the poor can. Thus voting on an account basis is unrealistic.

I think a good analogy would be (within the NXT ecosystem), 1 NXT = 1 Person, Account Owner = Representative. So if you own 10k NXT, you are their representative and represent their "views", but you cannot speak for all the NXTs under other representatives.

I can understand your point of view. But do not make the Nxt ecosystem for Nxt. We do it for the people. And when people don't like it because it does not seem fair they won't support it.

There are more different methods as only these two (1 Vote = 1 Nxt and 1 vote = 1 account) and variants of them.

The problem with these two is, there is nothing at stake. You can vote whatever and whenever you want.

If you have to pay for each vote and the amount of what you pay directly influences the voting power, you really think of voting when and what and how much is it worth to me.

So, something is at stake now. I cannot simply pay 10.000.000 to simply outvote everyone else. Because, in the next voting session would won't have any coins left.

Can you produce any valid argument against fee-based voting? I would really like to hear them as I want Nxt to thrive because people love it.

Technically, everyone who votes, as a stakeholder, has something at stake. Large stakeholders won't vote for things that would destroy the value of their NXT, correct? They will not also vote to harm small stakeholders, because that would hurt or prevent new users from coming into the system, thus hurting their own stake.

Perhaps, like others have mentioned before, we should have different voting methods for different things.

1) For bigger things like deciding decimal points, which feature should be prioritized, etc. then we can use 1 NXT = 1 Vote. On these issues, everyone should care, but the larger stakeholders technically have more at risk, so they should have more say in what direction NXT should follow. This will also encourage everyone in the NXT ecosystem to vote because there is no fee, plus they wouldn't want to hand all the power to large stakeholders. Additionally, with the wealth dispersion that is on-going, not all the large holders will vote for the same thing all the time, so I think it'll work out.

2) For more trivial things like banners, logos, etc. we can use 1 Cost = 1 Vote. The idea is that since these things are not as important, people only will pay as much as they care, which makes sense. Plus, if someone really wants a particular banner and pays 10000's of NXT... let them and redistribute NXT to everyone else.

My only concern with 2) is that it may be abused, or that many stakeholders will end up not voting because they will think, "oh, I'll let other stakeholders fight it out with their NXT, not mine." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect) So I still feel 1) is the best course of action because everyone is voting with their stake, at stake.

and the one thing everyone keeps ignoring the "james bond villian" scenario where large stakeholders DONT behave the way you expect.