Quote from: okaynow on January 27, 2014, 01:50:43 AM

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

Technically, everyone who votes, as a stakeholder, has something at stake.

Technically yes, but history has proven otherwise. You are takinginto account an oversimplified view that assumes and implies that everyone wants what is best for the network. This is false, and it is safe to assume that there are no angels walking on this earth.

No, I'm saying that everyone wants what is best for themselves, which means large stakeholders will not want to harm their stake, thus they will not want to harm the network. If they grow the network, they are growing the value of their stake. Stakeholder votes for good things for NXT = his stake goes up = interests are aligned.

Quote

But if a vote coming out of a 10milnxt account has 10mil times more fees than a vote coming from a 1nxtacc then there is actually something at stake
How can we believe that Nxt can bring on something different to the table, if we stick to old tricks?

What would Satoshi do?

A 10mil account has 10mil at stake. He won't want to vote for something that will cause him to lose his value, right? If he votes for something that causes him to lose even 1%, that's 100k NXT worth right there, so the incentive is heavily biased to vote for good things that will help the network.

Additionally, I mentioned in my previous post:

Quote

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 (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.

If we introduce fees per vote, people are less likely to vote because they want other people to vote in their place and pay the fees. This will lead to only a small portion of the network voting, and thus easier to manipulate.