Topic: Can Crypto redefine current economic models? - page 4. (Read 908 times)

How does that happen? How does the system detect when someone sells their vote, or when a private key is compromised and used before the rightful holder gets their vote in? What happens when a bunch of people who weren't going to vote anyway have their keys compromised?


I don't see how that's going to work with millions of votes coming in on election day. There's just so many things that could go wrong here.

What do you mean by "hardware encryption" exactly?

Indeed. As governments need money for power, talking about the protocol... Organizations would need facts and impact data to get the Votes to access funding.
Not a bad incentive at all, what do you guys think?

They are even more important than money

Money makes the mare go, but it can't buy you power because power is not an asset which can be bought or sold (though dough can help you grab it). But once you have that power, you can print money out of thin air, so it is definitely worth the deal to spend as much money on votes as required. Votes give the government legitimacy, i.e. the right to have power which is obtained in an established way (legal way)

Well, that could be counter-played with safer wallets like let's say... Vote with your Phone Wallet, or maybe use the private key from Trezor Wallet, etc.
Proof of life methods usually guarantee that it's the person, if they are well applied.


Well, but for governments, votes are as important as money, aren't they? What's more, they spend $ in campaigns to attract/buy the votes! Quite a paradox jaja.

Well, it is designed by humans, yes. But where the protocol sends the money is decided by the stakeholders. Of course, in the end, it's a human decision, like every single thing in earth. The question is, how ethical/non ethical are these decisions?
If someone had to fund a Weapon Arsenal/Factory or a School, it's a human choice where the funds go, yet the ethic of the voter is crucial.

On the other hand, it could even be automated to the point in which, in the future, this protocol could choose by itself based on several quantitative metrics.


It's a respectable choice which we don't share (we believe that companies that are actually good/less bad for the environment should be leveraged), but respectable in the end. Having said that, you're part of the 10% (from the stats we have gathered) that would make that choice, which is really interesting to know the motivations/reasons for the choice (Having the knowledge of contamination facts/stats, etc.)


Jaja, the Planned Economy. Yes, corruption is a huge problem that almost all of Latam is suffering. Lavajato, Cuadernos de las Coimas, and many more...
Well, the way we see it, you actually have new people "running for positions" all the time...

Let's say that if someone wished to receive funds from the protocol, then they would need to apply to enter the "Network" that receives funds from the protocol.
The "Network's"stakeholders vote if that someone is accepted or rejected.
What would you say?

A protocol that automates it..so nice.
But this protocol has to be designed by humans and humans will tell this protocol where it can "automatically" send funds.
Nothing different, just some fancy names and technology waved to the masses.


If everything, everything is the same price, color, model probably it will be the same as I told you before.
I will get the gas and my wife the electric.


One of the many miracles of a planned economy.
We were importing some sort of expandable chips made in Vietnam that tasted like plastic and tons of pencils from China but we had almost no rice in stores.
And man we were building furniture. I have no idea how much wood was cut but each town had a furniture shop with more pieces in store than all the IKEA's in the world.

But, I must say that it wasn't really the same corruption as we see in South America.
It was more a form of nepotism and small favors corruption that led us having really really stupid people in charge.
A lot of people that basically destroyed our economy were not corrupt, they were purely too damn stupid to run a lego gas station.

The best example for this, when you have somebody that is well-intentioned but out of his league is the famous program by Mao, Great Leap Forward, the guy really believed in it but it ended up killing millions.


But, coming back to the blockchain.
As long as the protocol will be defined by some it will still take into account only the options that are designed into it.
If you have the same 20 people running for positions in the government, blockchain or normal voting the results will be the same.

And, what is worse, in case of really corrupt countries, voting will make no difference.
Venezuela is the perfect example where even if the population votes against the main ruling party they will find a way to make that vote irrelevant.

I always said it, the blockchain is just a distributed database, it won't be able to make wonders.

Some of your concerns are valid while others not so much

Bitcoin wallets get hacked because Bitcoin is worth something. But what's the purpose of stealing your voting key if you won't be able to use it anyway? Say you steal it from someone and then vote with it. Now we see what could be loosely interpreted as a double spend. Obviously, both votes are then declared invalid, while the legitimate owner receives the right to cast a new vote with a new key (or is obliged to vote in "manual" mode if he is not able to provide enough security for his keys). We could use hardware encryption and that would solve the problem of hacking

Regarding technical details how it should work in practice, I guess this system should begin as Bitcoin itself had started, i.e. without any help or assistance from the government (at least, not public). In this way, if enough people will be using such a system for voting on their issues (think of it as a consensus), it will escalate quickly until the government can no longer be considered legitimate if it refuses to accept the results of such a vote. All in all, we just need a new Satoshi Nakamoto, with a voting system in mind

I've always been skeptical about this. How will it work exactly? Everyone gets assigned a public key pair by the state? How do you verify that the only person "voting" is the person who was assigned the private key? How do you ensure that people aren't getting their private keys hacked?

I see people getting their crypto wallets hacked left and right. This seems much less secure than the current system with photo ID verification.

Token Curated Registry. It has incentives to keep the registries/lists in a proper way and penalties for people that want to degrade the Registries.

Will keep you updated @Deisik !
Interested in your opinions!

What is TCR in this context?

Regardless, we can't be sure, and that's the problem (which I already mentioned in one of my posts). Delegating power and authority is how the current system works, and I don't think there is a need to change it. We just need either to make elections fair (and this is where the blockchain can help) or dismantle this system altogether in case we are not happy with the results (e.g. due to some random dudes being elected for whatever reason)

Do not want to tax. As talking above... Making a protocol that automates this redirection of profits, towards customers entities of choice, in an optional way. A company may adopt it or not, but please... Do not make any compulsory tax/norm/law or whatever, as you said... We have way too many pictures of how the thing is.

Do you like Austrian Economic Theory? Freedom to everyone. We believe in freedom, not really in taxes. What we're proposing is an optional protocol/system that people can adopt in order to make sure that positive change is created and to add intrinsic value to their products.

100%. And that's when you get the question again.

You have the same car, same features, same everything.
To make car A, from 1-10, pollution was 10.
To make car B, from 1-10 pollution was 3.

What car are you getting? (Remember, they are both the same, the only difference is the one mentioned above)


Jaja, interesting thing about butter and milk. Makes no sense at all. Butter is made with a very little portion of what gets extracted alongside the milk, so why no milk??
As to Argentina, although it did not get to the Venezuela Point, it got really close.
Attacks to non-official media, prohibition of imports, corruption, prohibition to buy foreign currencies, almost prohibition to travel. It was hell, but at least, there was food for the people.
Almost 1/3 of the country received money from the government, building a system where 20% of working population had to mantain the rest of the country. It was crazy. More than 1B stolen in direct corruption schemes by the ex president and his fellows.

Not to ever come back again.


Agreed. But how do we make sure that the ones voting through Blockchain, as you said, are competent? Maybe if it was like some form of TCR, then non-experts on x matter should delegate the vote to renowned experts?

No, you want a redistribution of wealth from some to some.
Taxes are applied to everyone, you want to tax more companies that invest in automation just because they are more profitable and as you said it earlier "give to the poor".
Not that I have something against the poor, but it's a long damn history when all this ended up pretty badly, with populist regimes taking over and being kept in power "democratically" by the ones that loved to get with giving.


You don't need to do anything.
The free market is already here, I want this product I want to buy it, I want a petrol car I buy one, my wife wants an electric she buys one but when you try to force some environment crap that in the end manages to somehow pollute more than before this turns into a controlled economy.


So let the people decide and stop trying to turn everybody into a tree hugger


Eastern Europe, ratios, limited products, power shortages in the late 80,  the disaster started up in 1981 with the first mass food protest..ended up a decade after.

Unlike Venezuela, we had toilet paper but you were allowed to buy only 6(?, I don't remember too well) rolls per person and usually there was a 50-100 people queue. One thing I still don't understand even now is why and how there was still butter in the shops but no milk, probably one of the miracles of a planned economy.

It won't be governance through the blockchain

As it will only be elections through the blockchain, if they will ever be, of course. The blockchain can help greatly with making elections tamper-proof as you won't be able to doctor the results because everyone will see that immediately (as an invalid transaction, for example). Hacking this system would require hacking the underlying cryptographic algo, good luck to you with that 

It is indeed redistribution of wealth. Redistribution of wealth is everywhere. Taxes are redistribution of wealth.
The statement here is to do private, optional and smart redistribution of wealth.
Ie: Grameen Bank, Triodos Bank, the company mentioned you about on plastic bricks, etc...


True, wrongly read!


Not at all. We live in a free world, hopefully, all of the markets will be free. We do not support any measure that is applied in a compulsory way.
By referring to Purpose Based Capitalism, the proposal is for the market to choose what companies they will support. Would you prefer, as a client, and being the same service, a socially/environmentaly aware company or a non socially/environmentally aware company? Do you prefer an electric car or do you prefer a car that works with petrol? That's what we're talking about.

Any company can do what they want in the world, what we would like to do is to boost an industry of purpose based companies, and let the people decide! People in the end have the choice and we want them to have the choice.

Being in Argentina, we can tell you... We don't know where you are from, but we almost end up like Venezuela if our government didn't change (which of course we voted for; the new government). Again, you're location is unknown, but I hope it wasn't as bad as it was here.

Sorry to tell you, but in Argentina, 1 of the biggest mining companies, with 1.5 M in assets (S9s) generates the mentioned profit. Real case.
Not really. Let's say this company reinvested 1/3 in social entrepreneurs (People who make businesses with solutions to social/environmental problems). That would actually create jobs and wealth, rather than taking it. It would be the same as an accelerator, but just made in a transparent way...

It all depends on how you look at things! The important part is, create jobs, create change. Don't do it the Chavez, Cristina Kirchner and all those kind of governments way just to gain power...


So it'd be selected people, governance through blockchain?
Always interesting to hear thoughts...

Bitcoinity shows a volume of 60-100k bitcoins per day, that means at best 3 millions BTC , you advanced a number of 1.2 billions
?



You can sugarcoat everything, it won't make them waffles
The main principle of your plan is redistribution of wealth!
No matter what you say, how you try to define this is a national socialist or a communist doctrine.


Sorry, but those numbers seem pulled out of you know what..

I know this was just an example but learn to do some math first, this is why projects, where numbers are thrown around with no backing, fail miserably

An s15 does 28th, to have 50 petahash your need 2000 of those.
An s15 at 4cents per kwh makes 1300$ a year so the profit would be 2.6 mills a year or 200k/month.

BUT
You will not ROI in the first year, and you need to invest 6 million in this.
AND
If you were making 60k a month in profit....you would probably never recover your initial investment.

So don't play that easily with numbers!




Let's not even discuss it because it makes really no sense.


Yet, you want to allow only some kinds of business to flourish, thus limiting creativity, offer, access to products...
This is communism!!!!

Again, don't sugarcoat it as I can smell it from a mile away, I spent two decades in a regime like that, it all started with the same illusions or delusions


Try to live one-year without touching a product or a byproduct made from oil. Try!!!
And agriculture without chemicals...yeah..it's possible!!
But a kg of apples will cost you 20 euros and in a decade the population of Africa might drop to a few tribes. Not that India and the rest of South Asia might fare better.


Yeah, and how did that work out?
Making the poorer far poorer, this is what redistribution of wealth always end ups doing.

I think it is not an issue which should be handled by the blockchain

But I don't think we need to invent the wheel here as the criteria are pretty established already. It is eduction and experience (expertise) in the respective area. It should be clear that no one can become a qualified surgeon without first studying all the required things and techniques for some time as well as having a lot of practice as a surgeon assistant. It is the same with virtually any other occupation out there

Bitcoinity says otherwise. Binance only makes 200M profit every quarter.
@Stompix , thank you for your answer in the first place. Secondly, we really believe that socialism is not a good idea. We have lived it in Argentina, saw it in Venezuela, Russia, etc.
This is more a purpose based capitalism. We're talking about a future where machines will do most of the jobs, leaving many people unemployed.
And it's not just giving. It's helping directly. Today you make it with the name of taxes, but you actually never know how your taxes end or directly impact in the economy, tomorrow you may be able to just choose where you believe that money should go.

Taking it to the case of a mining (crypto) company.
With 4 employees only you can run mining facilities of 50 petahashes that make, in the current market, a profit of US$60.000 . In the future, things will work like that.
It's not about just giving to anyone. It's about choosing and catalizing change and growth.
In the first place, who's taking care of the environment? Without taking care of it, there wont be any place for communism, capitalism, socialism, or anything, because humans won't be able to live.
Let's say that problem is taken care of.
Why not, donating/investing in more purpose based businesses? Creating a purpose based economy. It's not about just giving. It's about boosting the growth of these kind of businesses, entities, that actually create a positive change. Call it ethical banking, microcredits, environmental impact businesses (for example, there is a very big company in Argentina that recycles plastic with which they make bricks, to make houses). These should be the businesses that flourish in the future, and this could be done, why not, by redirecting profits from private entities. Never as a law, always as a choice. Definitely, people need to be able to choose what they want to do with their money, if not, then it really is some form of lefty politics that as you said, we've seen the results.

And yes, many companies grab the profits and just seek for more profits because investors want more profits and thats a neverending loop. Whats the whole point of making that money profits, which a shareholder will never be able to use anyway, without having any impact at all in the world?

Is a future where companies are bad for environment (ie: Oil) and for the societies (ie: Many fashion ones, agricultural with chemicals) really possible? Shouldn't ethics and awareness really change?

People need to change mindset from competition and scarce to collaboration and abundance. Companies are already making donations to lower taxes, investments in startups to create more businesses and let new ecosystems grow, but why not letting the people do that? Letting customers create direct impact? Would be an amazing value vs only offering materialistic/superficial features, ie: we are 1 microsecond faster in each transaction!

It's not about giving just for free because everything needs to get redistributed like your Chavez would do. It's about redistribute to increase the rate of growth in ethic companies and help to dangered regions (both environment as social wise)
Nobody controls the private keys, the protocol does!
Open votation systems like Democracy Earth for example.
Well, maybe stakeholding would make sense? A protocol that works through smart contracts!

Let's keep building it!

Well, if it's really decentralized and in the form of stake, how do you make sure that they are competent? Maybe masternodes? How could it get done?

I think it is possible

And it is one of the uses where the blockchain technology can actually be used (other than as an empty buzz word). I refer here to election systems which allow tamper-proof voting using the blockchain technology. So you set up such a system in a society or community (local or whatever) and then everyone votes in a decentralized and secure manner. In this way "that stuff" (whatever it might be) gets enforced with the blockchain protocol (though in an indirect way)

Yeah, I know what our next problem would be, i.e. how many people are actually competent to make sane and balanced decisions on that stuff. But this problem can be alleviated by first electing competent people to handle the job and then allowing them to solve the issue in question

Funny how you say that and all that you try to picture as a solution for a problem that is not here yet or might not even become a problem are all socialist ideas.


First, the volume for 30days is $493,131,633,426  , that is about 90% lower than your number and lately, we have seen how the volumes are all inflated by at least 10x if not 100x.
So your 6 billion might be 60 million at best.

But no matter the numbers, yeah, let's take 33% of people's money and spend it on "good" causes.
Chavez would be proud.


Newsflash!!!
The rate of poverty in Sweden is the biggest of all Nordic Countries:

The money can be stored on a decentralized protocol (as a cryptocurrency). That's not the problem. The problem is who controls the private keys to that money? How do you set up a governance system where the money is safe from embezzlement and other sorts of dishonesty?

Who do you mean exactly when you say "the community"? Is it based on geography, common stakeholding interests? How do you enforce that stuff with a protocol? If it's not enforced with a protocol, how do you set up governance so that "the community" is truly in control?

It's still seems like the same old problems that governments and nonprofits and social services have.

Yes, they are people, but that power is really concentrated. There's a big need for purpose based capitalism in order to see these opportunities as a good for everyone and not just a few! There's enough wealth for everyone to spend good times.

Yes, but taxes are not always used at their max potential, they are really easy to be redirected into the wrong hands and there's very little control over them. How can we make sure that the money gets where it needs to?


What if the own community decided what projects can receive investments, the money is controlled by a decentralized protocol?
Let's build it together!