Please install the new mandatory upgrade: Nu client version 0.5.4 , that fixes the way motion votes are counted, before “revoting” for the motion.
1 Like
Ok, installed and voting again. Let’s pass this thing for realz this time. 
4 Likes
Here are the details for the Motion Vote on 6f361693a7b248730b41d4292f89dc6f6f166bc8:
##[6f361693a7b248730b41d4292f89dc6f6f166bc8][1]
[1]: https://discuss.nubits.com/t/voting-motion-to-make-the-nu-source-code-available
Blocks: 4150 (41.500000%)
Share Days: 1447803085 (42.932303%)
This is the finalize motion to make the Nu source code open to the public. For more information about this proposal, and to view discussions about what items some community members belived should be completed on the development roadmap before they will vote for this motion, see:
Here are the details for the Motion Vote on 6f361693a7b248730b41d4292f89dc6f6f166bc8:
##[6f361693a7b248730b41d4292f89dc6f6f166bc8][1]
[1]: https://discuss.nubits.com/t/voting-motion-to-make-the-nu-source-code-available
Blocks: 4144 (41.440000%)
Share Days: 1447341854 (42.996660%)
This is the finalize motion to make the Nu source code open to the public. For more information about this proposal, and to view discussions about what items some community members belived should be completed on the development roadmap before they will vote for this motion, see:
Our daily trading volume is down to only $10,000 today. The loss of BTER and Exco.in is not just a loss in shareholder funds, it is a reduction in system-wide demand for NuBits. We need to open-source to gain access to bigger exchanges that will stimulate demand for NuBits.
6 Likes
Does this need to be posted on Reddit? Maybe people there don’t know. We have an obligation to pass this now, or else it will be very embarrassing for Nu.
1 Like
I think it’s important that any communication that is perceived to be coming from the Nu team is impartial. There is a difference between CoinGame or I posting “I think Nu should be open-source, and here is why” and “All shareholders must vote for open-source immediately”. The integrity of our voting system relies on shareholders making decisions that are best for themselves.
2 Likes
I’ve posted on Reddit here: http://www.reddit.com/r/NuBits/comments/2wd3dn/motion_to_open_source_nu_still_needs_your_votes/
I’ve not waved the open source flag too hard but tried to lay out the issue and the potential repercussions.
@assistant motion vote 6f361693a7b248730b41d4292f89dc6f6f166bc8
2 Likes
Here are the details for the Motion Vote on 6f361693a7b248730b41d4292f89dc6f6f166bc8:
##[6f361693a7b248730b41d4292f89dc6f6f166bc8][1]
[1]: https://discuss.nubits.com/t/voting-motion-to-make-the-nu-source-code-available
Blocks: 4204 (42.040000%)
Share Days: 1468237093 (43.709163%)
This is the finalize motion to make the Nu source code open to the public. For more information about this proposal, and to view discussions about what items some community members belived should be completed on the development roadmap before they will vote for this motion, see:
Btw, once a motion is passed, does it make any difference for one to remove the hash from one’s voting list from the first place? I personally leave all motion and keep voting even after they ve passed…
We are getting momentum building again. The last two hours have seen the motion rise to nearly 43%.
1 Like
Hi @cryptog
Here are the details for the Motion Vote on 6f361693a7b248730b41d4292f89dc6f6f166bc8:
##[6f361693a7b248730b41d4292f89dc6f6f166bc8][1]
[1]: https://discuss.nubits.com/t/voting-motion-to-make-the-nu-source-code-available
Blocks: 4353 (43.530000%)
Share Days: 1509090532 (44.939329%)
This is the finalize motion to make the Nu source code open to the public. For more information about this proposal, and to view discussions about what items some community members belived should be completed on the development roadmap before they will vote for this motion, see:
quickly rising up.
Hi @crypto_coiner.
Leaving passed motions in you client doesn’t make any difference to the motions themselves. The issue is merely that the votes for passed motions are registered in the blockchain still which could lead to unnecessary bloat.
By remaining in the blockchain, these votes are still counted by the RPC call to get the motion details. This is why a call to “assistant motion votes” shows quite a few motions that have already passed.
I’d recommend removing passed motions / custodian votes from the client just to make things tidier although it has no “bad” effects on the network as such.
1 Like
If you have a lot of passed motions entered into the client, plus maybe one serious motion that has yet to be passed like open sourcing, wouldn’t you basically be spreading all your votes between all of these passed motions, meaning less votes for the only motion that really matters? You’d basically be spreading your votes too thin. And wouldn’t removing the already passed motions mean more focused voting on the yet to be passed motion? Or is this not how it works?
1 Like
By entering motion hashes into the client these motion hashes are cast in a block each time one block is successfully minted (given global limits are not exceeded).
All (different) motions that are entered (plus custodial votes and park rates) are valid votes.
So you don’t spread anything too thin. There’s no round robin or other distribution of votes going on when minting.
Allowing multiple motion hashes per block in fact was one of the reasons that caused the trouble with this particular vote: the duplicate motion hash check was missing; multiple (duplicate) hashes in a single block counted as multiple votes. That has been corrected with client 0.5.4.
I will start voting for open source give the situation which developed in the last few days. I’m starting to understand the losses made and the real need for other exchanges to spread our risks. Hope we can convince other exchanges to add us soon and motivate more LPC to start providing liquidity. I hope this doesn’t come at a very high cost.
5 Likes