If you vote by address anyone can open multiple address with a light client like myetherwallet.com
If you vote by coin, many miners will miss out as they often cash out 80% each month to pay power costs.
Maybe there is a way of voting with a node, but some miners mine at a light client address from a mining pool and not run a node.
Lots of stuff just don't join up.
What do you feel about having 2 address for voting. One address "yes" / Other address "no"
You send a small amount (0.1) etc to the address of your choice but you can only send once from a wallet running geth.
Is that doable?
what are we voting on?
voting clearly needs to be weighted by holding - the main holders of ETC will not go with any crap that each one wallet (and thousands of 1 ETC wallets on GETH) holding miniscule ETC should have equal say in anything ETC related compared to someone holding 1,000's of ETC in ONE WALLET. Its not representative of the community what you seem to be suggesting? The owners of ETC need to be represented by the investment and risk they are taking in this venture and the long term future of ETC.
I'm a miner but not sure what you do to take this interest into account? Like me - most miners go where the money is. Few miners can afford to consider the long term and as such I don't feel that miners votes would be truly representative of long term interests and support for ETC. The miner votes would generally support continued mining - but it takes investors in the end to maintain price and if they vacate the scene because they are not represented - price falls and miners leave.
As for using GETH - its a 3 legged dog. MIST and Etherwallet are based on GETH and too cumbersome IMO. Parity --geth mode and MyEtherWallet.com are the better options by far (MEW especially) - so I will NEVER use GETH even for an important vote.
You need to understand that there are VERY major holders in ETC (pity no rich list - it would blow you away).
carbonvote - developed by the Chinese ETH community was actually a very fair voting system. Its open source. Suggest you have a look.
https://github.com/consenlabs/carbonvoteThats all that I will accept unless someone comes up with a better method of weighting to account for "skin in the game".
For the record again - I favour POS for ETC before the diff bomb cuts in.
As @iCEBREAKER seems to - and he makes sense:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.15836594)
So if there is any voting I will be holding out for it to be weighted for holding (and most ETC owners of any substance will demand this - you can expect that something like 5% of holders own 70% of ETC) and I will be voting for POS (this may be more contentious) but I believe its best for the long term for ETC.
i do understand your argument about investments and the risk you take so you think you should have a bigger say in a voting.
green and i are just starting this conversation about a vote becouse it was clear in the fork vote it was not a good one.
many didnt know of it.
so if you say carbonvote is good well is it save too ? and can it be manipulatet ?
just questions ..... i think for the futur to avoid situations like the one we have now it need to set up rules for voting and forks
plus a vote needs a information time befor vote.
befor the fork there was fragments of info around or just statements like vitalik saying he is profork
and they didnt really tell what the fork will do
yes you say on the github but holders are not that good at techniqual stuff
they want to know what it means for the futur of a coin.
