Topic: 'Vote with your bitcoins' voting system - page 2. (Read 9267 times)
Seems good!
I would like to review this thought, and maybe somebody can pick it up as a formal project.
It could have big success if done correctly, and it can be beneficial for the community so that we can finally have a transparent formal discussion about bitcoin and it's future.
It could have big success if done correctly, and it can be beneficial for the community so that we can finally have a transparent formal discussion about bitcoin and it's future.
I was commenting on the pdf.
I understand your proposal.But tying the BTC in your account for the duration of the voting process may not be well recieved.
Is it possible to invalidate my vote and make outgoing transactions in case of an emergency?
Would the taint analysis fail if an exchange has casted one vote and as a user I withdraw some coins to my wallet and then try to cast a vote?
I told you in my voting system, you cannot have output transactions from a voting address until the voting is finished.
To prevent double-voting the same coins.
I understand your proposal.But tying the BTC in your account for the duration of the voting process may not be well recieved.
Is it possible to invalidate my vote and make outgoing transactions in case of an emergency?
Would the taint analysis fail if an exchange has casted one vote and as a user I withdraw some coins to my wallet and then try to cast a vote?
I told you in my voting system, you cannot have output transactions from a voting address until the voting is finished.
To prevent double-voting the same coins.
I think this is actually a really good way of voting.
What would make sense is for an amount to be chosen, say BTC1.00 = 10 votes. On a certain undisclosed day, chosen by devs, anyone with BTC1.00 or more can vote for a certain amount of time (ie. 2 weeks)
So say someone had BTC1.50. They would get 15 votes whereas someone with BTC0.50 wouldn't get any votes. This way there would be no benefit to breaking up BTC100.00 if you had that many, and anyone with dust in their wallets doesn't get any.
What would make sense is for an amount to be chosen, say BTC1.00 = 10 votes. On a certain undisclosed day, chosen by devs, anyone with BTC1.00 or more can vote for a certain amount of time (ie. 2 weeks)
So say someone had BTC1.50. They would get 15 votes whereas someone with BTC0.50 wouldn't get any votes. This way there would be no benefit to breaking up BTC100.00 if you had that many, and anyone with dust in their wallets doesn't get any.
It seems to me that one satoshi - one vote is the only way this works. In the situation you outline there is incentive to break up the 100btc, and no way to stop it because votes need to be anonymous (as somebody pointed out earlier). And keep in mind you keep your money, only prove you have it not spend it - that's what makes this different from an auction.
If you are interested please read this paper on the topic please, all comments appreciated:
http://vixra.org/pdf/1506.0163v1.pdf
It would be a great step-up so that we can finally have a better consensus system.
If a consensus is reached, why not?
It's hard to reach consensus if there is no platform to vote.
Ok the miners vote with hash power, the merchants announce publicly their goals, but how to you ask the millions of bitcoin users?
For that you need a voting system like this.
Looks like coinocracy has modernized their website:
http://bitcoinocracy.com/
However it would still be better if this feature would be available directly from the clients, optionally of course.
For example every major bitcoin wallet could integrate this into the wallet system, and make it disabled by default and those that want to vote to enable it in the options menu..
It would be a great step-up so that we can finally have a better consensus system.
http://bitcoinocracy.com/
However it would still be better if this feature would be available directly from the clients, optionally of course.
For example every major bitcoin wallet could integrate this into the wallet system, and make it disabled by default and those that want to vote to enable it in the options menu..
It would be a great step-up so that we can finally have a better consensus system.
I hope my system gets implemented one day in lightweight clients like electrum, and other web clients.
Imagine the possibility of voting with your bitcoin with only 1 click! It can be a great opinion system, and a great decision platform.
Imagine the possibility of voting with your bitcoin with only 1 click! It can be a great opinion system, and a great decision platform.
I think this is actually a really good way of voting.
What would make sense is for an amount to be chosen, say BTC1.00 = 10 votes. On a certain undisclosed day, chosen by devs, anyone with BTC1.00 or more can vote for a certain amount of time (ie. 2 weeks)
So say someone had BTC1.50. They would get 15 votes whereas someone with BTC0.50 wouldn't get any votes. This way there would be no benefit to breaking up BTC100.00 if you had that many, and anyone with dust in their wallets doesn't get any.
What would make sense is for an amount to be chosen, say BTC1.00 = 10 votes. On a certain undisclosed day, chosen by devs, anyone with BTC1.00 or more can vote for a certain amount of time (ie. 2 weeks)
So say someone had BTC1.50. They would get 15 votes whereas someone with BTC0.50 wouldn't get any votes. This way there would be no benefit to breaking up BTC100.00 if you had that many, and anyone with dust in their wallets doesn't get any.
It seems to me that one satoshi - one vote is the only way this works. In the situation you outline there is incentive to break up the 100btc, and no way to stop it because votes need to be anonymous (as somebody pointed out earlier). And keep in mind you keep your money, only prove you have it not spend it - that's what makes this different from an auction.
If you are interested please read this paper on the topic please, all comments appreciated:
http://vixra.org/pdf/1506.0163v1.pdf
I think this is actually a really good way of voting.
What would make sense is for an amount to be chosen, say BTC1.00 = 10 votes. On a certain undisclosed day, chosen by devs, anyone with BTC1.00 or more can vote for a certain amount of time (ie. 2 weeks)
So say someone had BTC1.50. They would get 15 votes whereas someone with BTC0.50 wouldn't get any votes. This way there would be no benefit to breaking up BTC100.00 if you had that many, and anyone with dust in their wallets doesn't get any.
What would make sense is for an amount to be chosen, say BTC1.00 = 10 votes. On a certain undisclosed day, chosen by devs, anyone with BTC1.00 or more can vote for a certain amount of time (ie. 2 weeks)
So say someone had BTC1.50. They would get 15 votes whereas someone with BTC0.50 wouldn't get any votes. This way there would be no benefit to breaking up BTC100.00 if you had that many, and anyone with dust in their wallets doesn't get any.
No actually the voting initiation can be done by anyone. But lets say the entry fee is 1 BTC which will be sent to a random miner, to prevent spam.
And then multiple votable issues can there be too.
And everyone who owns bitcoin can vote.
Who spends the most bitcoins and signs the most messages with freely&independently generated keys in a static time-frame isn't a voting system it's an auction..
Nothing suggested here prevents voter fraud and actually tries to profit off of it..
Yes its an auction because you vote with your money.
The money is voting, not you!
That's fine as long as it's not presented as some secure voting system meant to represent a democratic vote.
Who said anything about democratic vote?
It's a capitalist voting system as it should reflect what bitcoin is: a corporation.
I think this is actually a really good way of voting.
What would make sense is for an amount to be chosen, say BTC1.00 = 10 votes. On a certain undisclosed day, chosen by devs, anyone with BTC1.00 or more can vote for a certain amount of time (ie. 2 weeks)
So say someone had BTC1.50. They would get 15 votes whereas someone with BTC0.50 wouldn't get any votes. This way there would be no benefit to breaking up BTC100.00 if you had that many, and anyone with dust in their wallets doesn't get any.
What would make sense is for an amount to be chosen, say BTC1.00 = 10 votes. On a certain undisclosed day, chosen by devs, anyone with BTC1.00 or more can vote for a certain amount of time (ie. 2 weeks)
So say someone had BTC1.50. They would get 15 votes whereas someone with BTC0.50 wouldn't get any votes. This way there would be no benefit to breaking up BTC100.00 if you had that many, and anyone with dust in their wallets doesn't get any.
Who spends the most bitcoins and signs the most messages with freely&independently generated keys in a static time-frame isn't a voting system it's an auction..
Nothing suggested here prevents voter fraud and actually tries to profit off of it..
Yes its an auction because you vote with your money.
The money is voting, not you!
That's fine as long as it's not presented as some secure voting system meant to represent a democratic vote.
Who spends the most bitcoins and signs the most messages with freely&independently generated keys in a static time-frame isn't a voting system it's an auction..
Nothing suggested here prevents voter fraud and actually tries to profit off of it..
Yes its an auction because you vote with your money.
The money is voting, not you!
Voting has to be anonymous guys. I`m not sure why you are so uneducated about this.
If voting is not anonymous, then the majority party can just coerce and threaten people to vote for them, and when they get into power they will put the opposition members in gulags.
Therefore, voting has to remain anonymous, but still transparent, and bitcoin can offer both.
If voting is not anonymous, then the majority party can just coerce and threaten people to vote for them, and when they get into power they will put the opposition members in gulags.
Therefore, voting has to remain anonymous, but still transparent, and bitcoin can offer both.
Exactly right here. James D'Angelo has a great video about this in his bitcoin 101 series.
Who spends the most bitcoins and signs the most messages with freely&independently generated keys in a static time-frame isn't a voting system it's an auction..
Nothing suggested here prevents voter fraud and actually tries to profit off of it..
Voting has to be anonymous guys. I`m not sure why you are so uneducated about this.
If voting is not anonymous, then the majority party can just coerce and threaten people to vote for them, and when they get into power they will put the opposition members in gulags.
Therefore, voting has to remain anonymous, but still transparent, and bitcoin can offer both.
If voting is not anonymous, then the majority party can just coerce and threaten people to vote for them, and when they get into power they will put the opposition members in gulags.
Therefore, voting has to remain anonymous, but still transparent, and bitcoin can offer both.
Exactly right here. James D'Angelo has a great video about this in his bitcoin 101 series.
"the same coins cant be used to vote twice"..."you are an oligarch already"
What if I'm a mayor, governor, or president already?
Same coin? That has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. It's as if you don't know how bitcoin even works..
"No russian botnets wont disturb the voting procedure"
I can make automation for zero-coin(in fact I already pretty much already have as a tester) over the reference client why couldn't a building full of malware developers in Kursk, for example?
But feel free to put your idea online and we will see who is refusing to comprehend what.. -Who cares if it works I'll have short-term profit- just isn't going to cut it for a voting system I don't care how many technically illiterate startups try it..
Yes i put my idea out, and if its good it will be picked up, if not then not.
You have to try until you succeed, it doesnt work vice versa.
If your intention is to have a vote based on capital then this is fine, but what happens if I'm a russian or chinese oligarch with a leased or owned botnet and big capital already on the ledger and you want a vote that is democratic? ZeroCoin actually makes it easier for me to maintain dominance till the talley-time by obfuscating coins spent by me.
Yes if I'm you the owner of a influential poll or something this works in my favor though but has little to no integrity in it's results.
I already told you 3 times that the same coins cant be used to vote twice. Are you taking me for an idiot or you really dont read my posts?
No russian botnets wont disturb the voting procedure, and if you are an oligarch, you are an oligarch already.
"the same coins cant be used to vote twice"..."you are an oligarch already"
What if I'm a mayor, governor, or president already?
Same coin? That has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. It's as if you don't know how bitcoin even works..
"No russian botnets wont disturb the voting procedure"
I can make automation for zero-coin(in fact I already pretty much already have as a tester) over the reference client why couldn't a building full of malware developers in Kursk, for example?
Again nothing you're posting has technical validity. It's just some social-construct you seem to be using to push your idea..
But feel free to put your idea online and we will see who is refusing to comprehend what.. -Who cares if it works I'll have short-term profit- just isn't going to cut it for a voting system I don't care how many technically illiterate startups try it..
EDIT: What's so annoying is that after the 'nazi' and 'uneducated' comments you basically describe a weak version of what I did. Your system does nothing but make one person money it has ----zero---- to do with vote security.. Double spending or double voting have nothing to do with that because you ---don't distribute identifying data--- the attacker needs neither of those to completely overthrow your system..
If your intention is to have a vote based on capital then this is fine, but what happens if I'm a russian or chinese oligarch with a leased or owned botnet and big capital already on the ledger and you want a vote that is democratic? ZeroCoin actually makes it easier for me to maintain dominance till the talley-time by obfuscating coins spent by me.
Yes if I'm you the owner of a influential poll or something this works in my favor though but has little to no integrity in it's results.
I already told you 3 times that the same coins cant be used to vote twice. Are you taking me for an idiot or you really dont read my posts?
No russian botnets wont disturb the voting procedure, and if you are an oligarch, you are an oligarch already.
Jump to: