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.
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.
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.
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…
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:
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.
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?
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.
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:
The motion votes do not complete against each other. You can vote for many motions at the same time. It is a cumulative based on a 10,000 block window. Either there is a vote for the motion in one of those blocks, or there is not. If it had >50% of the blocks+SDD in that window the motion is considered passed. The only limitation is the size of the voting data that can be submitted into the blockchain per block. Meaning if we got to a point where there was so many motions to vote on that you had to leave out less important motions to vote on more important motions it would create somewhat of a competition between motion votes. We’ve not even got close to that limit. Though having votes set that don’t serve any purpose does bloat the blockchain somewhat needlessly.
