Topic: 'Vote with your bitcoins' voting system - page 3. (Read 9267 times)

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.

Well I see bitcoin as a business, and bitcoin owners as shareholders in this.

So it's obvious that the more bitcoins you hold, the more right you have over it, just like in a corporation.

It's nothing out of the ordinary, bitcoin is already a global social construct, not just a kindengarden toy money.

But the vote outcome is not binding, it's not a referendum, it's just an opinion poll, thats all.

I understand you don't see how investment capital means nothing regarding the vulnerabilities I mentioned. You basically turned this in to a social-construct.. Have fun being right. Hell capital influence trumping net-citizen-input is retarded within itself for picking leaders or even just voting on some music index on a website..

Probably not if you're the revenue receiver and don't care about the integrity..

You dont understand my concept.

Voter validation in my system is irrelevant, because it's not the individual that is voting but the capital.

The more capital you have the more voting power, it's that simple. You can vote from many addresses, but 1 bitcoin only gets to vote once, since the output transactions are forbidden.

And thats it, the same coin cant vote twice, and you vote with as many coins you have. All transparent, and anonymous (if you choose so).

Do you understand it?

Still vulnerable. To what I said last-post plus forced or automated voting.. Russia would love anonymous voting where nobody could validate voters including the voters.. Again all based on the -fact- you and the other guy denounced a public tally or ledger..

You're actually making voter fraud easier because you don't understand your own concept..

There is already that zerocash system coming out soon that will anonymize bitcoin transactions and make bitcoin adresses anonymous.

After that this should not be an issue. So those that would want their voting privacy kept, will keep it.

Those that want their voting info to be public will just post it on facebook anyway, not everyone likes privacy,but those that do will have an option to have it.

You said "anonymous" then suggest unique hashes in a public ledger that's meant to go to a privatized tally.. I'm not sure how you're confused by the contradiction where you just said a person who suggested the same model(minus -only in the hands of a private party- which defeats the purpose entirely) was "uneducated"..

The talley processing is vulnerable in your model without public tally of at least the choices. I'm not even sure how it's humanly possible to not see this but you and -everything is racist- guy somehow don't..

I`m not sure what you are talking about.

The voters vote with their coins, if the coin identity is not revealed, the voter's shouldn't be either.

You know how bitcoin privacy works


Person -> Bitcoin Address -> Bitcoin voting hash

So if his address is already public, then his identity is already exposed.

"Voting has to be anonymous guys. I`m not sure why you are so uneducated about this."

Then you suggest as hash per vote in an accessible ledger.. Like the "nazi" person I don't think you realize you're still using unique data per vote on top of using public quantifiable data that means nothing if it's meant to defend against a malicious tally party..

I dont know who are you and i dont even remember talking to you, you have a new avatar, so i`m not sure i remember you.

But what I`m referring to here is just an opinion poll, i dont want this to be a coercive system to control bitcoin, but it's always nice to have a voting pool to see what the majority opinion is (weighted by capital of course)

WTF? That's a hash per vote you just said was fascist after I first suggested it here. Do even know how the bitcoin ledger works? You also criticized my public data reference so your "nazis" wouldn't even have to process the data if they chose not to. Remember 100% of logic of your criticism relies on the evils being in power over the voting population.. Why would they not control voting of a nation they controlled already with military force or even just with -just enough- influence?

You're basically now suggesting the system you just said was fascist..

You vote with bitcoins, every bitcoin is unique you cant vote multiple times.

You just make sure that the voting address cannot have output transactions in the time of voting, and nobody can vote twice.

The votes are then weighted by the amount of bitcoin you vote with. Your bitcoins aren't spent in the process.

Just read the first post, its all laid down there.

I'm not sure if you're aware but a random number sequence or hash is just as good as a name to your ruling fascists.. Actually it makes modifying data even easier because they have to talley it and as you say only fascist would have public records..

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.

Well everyone voted for Nazis so what do you expect? Bitcoiners would vote for Hitler obviously.

The nazis could of just as easily used the most recent US voting system. If it can be tallied and has voter identification the nazis could of used it..

Have a OTP per voter with no other personal info? Nazis could of used it, or just changed the vote since they control the data.. You won't give us your OTP?[family is killed]

This sounds as rational and logical as most stuff I hear from left-wing enlightenment though.. In the modern world you'll never get away with forcing millions or hundred of millions of people to vote a certain way and if each voter can validate their vote fraud becomes impossible. If a small country tried to force votes it'd be extremely apparent to the rest of the world and domestic citizens..

Again, it's got nothing to do with fraud and security and everything to do with anonymity. Nobody wants an immediate relative to ask them to pull up their vote and see that they voted for higher taxes on farmers because they dislike laborers, for example.

I challenge you to make a system where not even the tally agents can identify the voter and there be no apparent fraud.. Else you're making a nazi system cause you're racist or don't like Starbucks lol..

That is more or less the dream of the European neo-Nazis that would facilitate organized voter intimidation and allow the party bosses to verify that their voters "voted correctly".

Mike Hearn proposed a variant of this using Trezor or similar devices, use search.

Opps, sorry. I "could of" engaged an illiterate.

Ninja edit:
Another edit:

Have thermal printers at voting booths that give people SHA-3 hashes of their voter data they can use to lookup public voting records to verify there votes. Also allow SSN lookup(without their other data to avoid ID theft). Beats all possible fraud and costs less than any system used to date.

The thing is people want to hide their opinions though. You can't do this system because people are deceptive(speaks volumes about "society"). I'd give them an AES key to decrypt and verify their data and let them look up with their SSN.

If it was all open though anyone could both catch election fraud and catch data manipulation. Not even nations of people working together could beat it because any one citizen could detect changes at any time.

The systems contractors and officials come up with are ridiculous.. They try to just protect things with policies and partial cryptography and they usually don't even know how to do -that-. It's usually some fat security turd nobody has ever heard of and who has never done any notable research doing as little as possible for as much as possible and selling fat lazy state employees on the integrity of their work..

I could make an epic rant on security firms who do audits for broker firms and state offices. They get away with so much just because their work is never really tested..

Vulnerable to DDOS? 

First of all nobody uses these sites.  The interest in provably fair voting for the public is at the moment nil.

Second of all, the database of votes could be mirrored ad infinitum.  There is no need to log in here.  The database has no need to be secret.  No coins are held.

OK, it is conceivable that if a given vote became important and popular then somebody who didn't like the result would try to ddos the site.  However in this case we would simply dump the database on various public forums and allow votes on various other public forums.. pastebins, etc.  This is not an exchange or gambling site which can be brought down with a DDOS.  We hold no coin and all data is public at all times.   

Yes its similar to bitcoinocracy.com, but it has to be implemented in the wallet softwares to be more resilient.

Those websites are vulnerable to DDOS, and the voting system can be distrupted. Such important feature needs to be in the wallet itself.