Nu is a blockchain based simulation of democracy

Nagalim 2017-03-19 02:27:45 UTC #10

An uninformed populace is death to democracy. Similarly, a sharebase that discusses issues soley using motions on the blockchain is death to distributed consensus.

Cybnate 2017-03-19 02:53:42 UTC #11

I think the focus for Nu need to be on process and incentives to participate into a process, not necessarily what morally is right or wrong or what people believe. Also not sure about the comparisons and generalisations about where people come from. Although I believe there is a learning curve in starting a democracy for both the citizens and the government everyone would be able to educate themselves on it and monetary incentives are well known and understood in almost every culture.

Groups of actors and incentives
Let’s talk about these incentives. A shareholder buys shares to obtain profit right? There are shareholders who are just in it for a quick buck, daytraders and the likes and you have shareholders who are investing for the long haul (6 months+ in cryptoland). There are also people who don’t hold shares but would be willing to provide services. They all typically behave differently and would be sensitive to different incentives.

The first group would typically be a bad custodian even if they have large stakes temporarily. They are motivated to make a quick buck, not to support the network in the long run. Trusting them with a decision to sell large amounts of shares would likely result in issues. Most of them would help themselves first and foremost and wouldn’t take any actions which would reduce their holdings in the short term.

The second group, investors, is potentially a better custodian. They look to gain from their investment over a longer period and would be more likely prepared to take short term hit to support the coin in order to gain confidence and trust which is likely to pay off in the longer run.

The third group doesn’t have shares but is happy to exchange their time for e.g. shares or monetary incentives. With the right mix of incentives, typically different from the others, they can be valuable for either one-off processes or relatively low to medium risk and/or easily transferable ongoing processes/services.

However the first two groups, also acting as custodian protecting the peg are faced with a disincentive when they have to follow the process which is likely to hurt them by the diminishing value of their shares. So I believe some tweaks are required in the custodian model to ensure that any disincentives by following process as a custodian are clearly offset in a way which keeps the shareholder comfortable and prevents fear. Only then it would work.

Learnings and examples from outside of Nu
Let’s look outside of Nu. In the non-crypto world there are sweets and sours. The sours are the police and military and some other institutions which have been founded by governments to ensure citizens and residents behave according to process even if that is not always in their best interest, short term or long term, but it usually serves the wider community.

Nu doesn’t have (fortunately) has police, prisons or military to make people do things or punish them if they don’t. So the focus within Nu will have to be that any disincentives to follow process will need to be offset by adequate incentives. I believe we should spend more time into determining that to strengthen the value of Nu. There are some major roadblock there as it requires 100% transparency in the network and with the shareholders in a custodian role. This may not be possible and may vary for each individual.

Will give some examples to illustrate which ways disincentives to follow process can be offset.
Any custodian should be provably invested in the network (look at Dash their model regarding hosting masternodes) and obtain rewards based on the performance in executing process. In Nu’s model funds can be held in multisig addresses looked after by other custodians who should also rewarded in ways that motivates them to follow process. This can be done by a monthly payment which would be stopped if they don’t respond or act according to the contracted process.

Challenge
The challenge in this is to build a model where all parties would always end up putting the Nu Networks interests over their own selfish interests. This requires a kind of KPI model which is used in many companies to ensure managers and directors do what their shareholders or boards want them to do.

To do that properly is no easy feat and many companies have failed and provided perverse incentives or non-transparent favours to some with all the negative consequences for the business as a whole. But I believe it is the only way to build proper governance without requiring force. It won’t be perfect and the system would need to be tweaked and adjusted as it grows and becomes more complex.
The trick is to minimize the impact and occurrence of the risks that a custodian acts selfish at the cost of the shareholders.

Food for thought.

Phoenix 2017-03-19 03:10:04 UTC #12

This is true and relevant. We found that NuShare holders generally did not have an understanding of how to conduct liquidity operations. That is alright, so long as they elect an expert to make decisions about liquidity operations.

I believe asking NuShare holders to manage park rates (interest rates) is beyond their ability to do effectively. Shareholders should generally elect experts and let them make specific decisions.

Using a data feed is kind of like voting for a political party and letting the party work out the details. That is the future of Nu.

Phoenix 2017-03-19 03:20:43 UTC #13

I’d like to give a more thoughtful response later, because you bring up some important points about proper incentives as the best government. That is true, but it is difficult to implement incentives in the varied and novel scenarios custodians face as they go about their work. To handle these one-off situations, we need integrity and good process. The incentive should be that you will be monetarily rewarded for demonstrating integrity and good process as a custodian. Conversely, you will be fired if you demonstrate authoritarian tendencies as a Nu custodian. So, we need to create understanding and recognition of what is expected by shareholders of custodians.

Certainly we should do as much as possible guiding and controlling behavior by offering effective incentives. Indeed there are many aspects of the protocol and and network that provide good incentives. They can always be tuned and developed, of course.

Sentinelrv 2017-03-19 06:41:48 UTC #14

Authoritarian my ass. Trump is the only thing standing in the way of the US turning into a ****hole like Sweden and these other European countries. They freely let these refugees into their countries trying to act like nice tolerant people, however these people had no intention of adapting and fitting in. Instead, they’re trying to take over. Violence and raping has skyrocketed, there are grenade attacks in the streets and the local media is trying to cover it up so their citizens are not properly informed of what is happening.

It’s so bad that an electric company had to stop servicing the area of Malmo because they’re afraid for the safety of their employees. They’re literally being sent back to the stone age as we speak. There’s no way in hell I want these backward people coming to my country. If the travel ban gives enough time to setup proper vetting procedures to prevent these crazies from coming over here to cause mayhem and destruction then so be it. If Clinton had not been stopped, the US would have been their next target. Besides, it is within the president’s legal right to protect American citizens in this way…

[quote]U.S. Code § 1182 (f)

Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.[/quote]

mhps 2017-03-19 07:33:04 UTC #15

Seek professional help, phoenix.

Cybnate 2017-03-19 09:14:51 UTC #16

That is not enough. There need to be a monetary disincentive e.g. Shares or NBT at stake.

Bold statement, even people with proper visas? I’m with you that better vetting of non-visa holders needs to take place and separate the economic refugees from the real refugees who has been chased from their homeland. Not sure why that need to take so long though.

Sentinelrv 2017-03-19 11:34:18 UTC #17

I’m mainly referring to the latter, the people who we don’t know anything about.

Sabreiib 2017-03-19 14:21:17 UTC #19

I don’t like talking politics, but I guess if USA continue to degrade by letting too many low quality immigrants into your country, China may challenge USA’s status in future. Trump is saving USA, from the view of many Chinese. Hitler is bad, but another extreme is also terrible.

How many refugees does USA want to accept? 1 Billion? There are 7 billion people on this planet, I guess majority of them prefer living in developed countries if they have chance.

matthewd 2017-03-19 14:49:58 UTC #20

This is based on a set of assumptions which are opinion, only.

The problem is not terrorism, it is jihad. In that respects, Trump’s ban is too narrow

Jihad is struggle to spread the Sharia, and to subdue those who do not recognise Allah as the sole god. There is jihad by politics, jihad by demography, and jihad by terror

Jihad by terror will not bring down western or non-Muslim civilisations, but the other two will, if not checked

Mohammed gave orders 1400 years ago, presented as Allah’s holy word to ensure compliance, that Muslims (bandits for the main part) who were outnumbered in a town were to stay low, and wait for reinforcements. Only when reinforced should Muslims attempt to take the town. This is why Muslims in small numbers do not wage jihad - they are following Mohammed’s instructions. In small numbers, Muslims can remain in a passive state indefinitely

When Muslims rise above a certain strength, they move to jihad. Modern Muslims are obviously not bandits, but they follow the strategic and tactical orders that Mohammed laid out 1400 years ago, presented as the word of Allah, which replicates the same effect. These order’s are laid out in the Koran (the words of Allah, i.e. Mohammed) and the Hadiths (which describe what Mohammed did after he spoke these words of Allah)

Muslims cannot be negotiated with, because they worship Allah, and Allah’s word (i.e. Mohammed’s orders) will always take precedence over the views of non-Muslims (“kaffirs”). The penalty for Muslims who argue with Allah is death in this world (e.g. honour killings) and hellfire in the next. The only way to contain Islam and sharia is not to import (more) Muslims.

Trumps gets this, but for politically correct reasons, he is presenting this as a terrorism issue. That is a mistake, in my view.

I do not know the U.S. policy for Muslims aleady living in the U.S., but I am not aware that Trump is proposing that American Muslims be deported. But there are many historical precedents for doing something similar; for example, Germans were deported (or interned) from Britain in 1939.

The U.S. is based on the rule of law, and if Trumps is entitled to act as he has done under U.S. law, then there is no issue legally. If he is not so entitled, then he needs to change the law. If an individual loses out due to a prior agreement with the U.S., they may be entitled to compensation or other legal redress - but that is not a reason to not prevent jihad and sharia. The duty of an American President is to defend Americans, not foreigners.

Sabreiib 2017-03-19 23:57:24 UTC #21

There are two possibilities:

West countries people are so warm hearted &innocent & noble that they believe the people outsides are also of high quality like them. West countries are importing Muslims and call it diversity, while Muslims want to unite the spirit and oppress other cultural.
White people don’t like having babies so you need the labors from outsides, in the name of diversity.

I am curious when “diversity” becomes the justice standard in west countries? Well. Russia and China are just waiting for the chance of the west’s fall due to diversity. It seems winning the cold war is not the end, the game is continuing.

Sentinelrv 2017-03-20 03:38:23 UTC #22

I think there’s a lot more to it than that. The entire thing seems planned out to me. The media in the US and other countries constantly attack their enemies like Trump through the use of political correctness, identity politics and smear tactics to the point where it all seems fake and coordinated. It seems to me as if some group of rich and powerful people are trying to lead the world in a particular direction and people like Trump are standing in their way.

I’ve read that it’s the globalists that are responsible for this and the end result is both one world government/currency as well as open borders and race mixing and things like that. These things used to sound like insane conspiracy theories to me, however I have to admit based on the things I’ve witnessed over this past year, these theories have started to look more and more like reality.

This seems to be the first time that the globalists have been politically defeated by an outsider (usually they own and control both candidates, Republican & Democrat), and Trump threatens to roll back all of their plans, so they are using the media to initiate an all out character assassination on him. Also for the first time though (and directly due to this election) the US media has lost the trust of the people and the massive influence they once had over the populace has been greatly diminished.

As a result, the media’s manipulations are having less of an effect. Less people believe them, so less are swayed by what they see on TV. For example, this whole Trump and Russia thing that they’ve been pushing for months has blown up in their face because nobody believes it. It seems they’ve finally overplayed their hand this time and are now facing the political consequences.

Sabreiib 2017-03-20 04:55:45 UTC #23

It’s time for human being to apply the anti exotic species invasion policy on human being themselves. If we still respect the rules of the earth mother.

matthewd 2017-03-20 19:35:05 UTC #24

If you play a game of chess, you play with 16 pieces per side. If you play well, you win, if you play badly, you lose. Either way the player is accountable.

What one does not do is place extra pieces on the board, taken from someone else’s chess set, to subsidise bad playing or create an unfair advantage. That is essentially what mass immigration is, placing extra pieces on the board: broadly speaking, the Democrats/Labour Party/Left do it to import voters and gerrymander politics, and the Republicans/Conservatives do it to get cheap labour and/or ponzify the economy

The chess board the nation state, the player is the government, the pieces the people. So long as the population is sovereign, the government is accountable. But if the government (state or corporate) can choose whatever population it likes, by importing new people and displacing existing ones, it is unaccountable

Trump is essentially enforcing the rules of chess and bringing government to order. The globalists want to destroy the nation state, so they have unaccountable control

matthewd 2017-03-20 19:36:17 UTC #25

Second time; Brexit was first

Phoenix 2017-03-20 22:22:25 UTC #26

In a sense, it is unfortunate most forum participants chose to discuss irrelevant topics, such immigration policy or their paranoia about Muslims, instead of talking about the implications of Nu being a democratic simulation. It shows their priority isn’t building the network. In the course of the discussion, quite a few authoritarian tendencies were revealed as well. These destructive tendencies that were revealed will be instructive to NuShare holders, who have a strong financial interest in making sure authoritarians have no power within the network, particularly in the role of custodians.

matthewd 2017-03-20 22:49:29 UTC #27

You started this discussion, see it through

Please identify which of my comments on Islam you think is inaccurate

Phoenix 2017-03-20 23:19:17 UTC #28

I’m not interested in Islam or a discussion about it.

Nu’s major failure has been to appoint a significant number of authoritarian custodians in the past. These custodians felt fear on May 27th when ~100,000 US-NBT were sold. I wasn’t concerned because I understood the liquidity model was well equipped to handle this. Most others didn’t understand its capacity or how it worked. So there was a lot of fear. When authoritarians experience fear, they are apt to change all the rules. When fearful, they say “This crisis was not foreseen. Therefore, the laws made before the crisis are of no use. We need to change the way we operate due to the crisis, suspending law. I will decide what the changes will be.” This is what Nu’s Chinese and American authoritarian custodians did. Authoritarian actions in a crisis created by their own fear tend to be cruel, socially disconnected and generally destructive. We can certainly characterize the abandonment of the NuBit peg as cruel, socially disconnected and generally destructive. It was classic authoritarianism.

So when NuShare holders look for authoritarian tendencies in people’s communications, we should look for appeals to fear. We look for appeals to suspend the rule of law because of some pressing or unforeseen reason. They like a strong man father figure. There is a contempt for the foundational democratic principle of equality of people (who in our simulation are NuShares or NuCitizens). There is a fear of outsiders. There are quite a few comments in this thread exhibiting these authoritarian orientations. It is good for NuShare holders to understand this.

Sabreiib 2017-03-21 00:05:33 UTC #29

Your decided how to use the B&C BTC fund without any motion and decided to filter out the NSR stolen recently. I guess you also have some tendency of authoritarian.
democratic principle of equality of people… that’s the problem of democracy. Before a doctor put a knife on his patient, before an engineer making a decision on a project, they need to be trained and get qualification. Before a NSR holder vote for NSR buyback, they need to know the meaning of it. Therefore, before a Citizen vote to influence one country’s future, they need to be wise/mature enough. We cannot have ISIS to vote for our country’s future because they will drag us to middle age.

The DASH has main node who must have 1000+ DASH, that’s the important reason of their success, but it’s not of equality, those have less 1000 DASH cannot be the main nodes.

F. A Hayek was also a sociologist, his opinion on democracy suggests that this issue is just not so simple as “letting everyone just vote equally”. Don’t forget Hayek was a dead enemy of Soviet Union dictatorship, but that doesn’t mean he goes to another extreme.

In fact, the Founding Fathers of the United State，also disliked so called "Direct election“ which is NOT USA’s democracy method.

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hayek_and_dictatorship

matthewd 2017-03-23 20:25:29 UTC #30

In the absence of information, it’s a survival instinct

In the presence of information, that outsiders represent a threat or potential threat, it’s a necessary choice