You might be interested in
coin-vote.com
As written up:
http://vixra.org/abs/1506.0163
Topic: 'Vote with your bitcoins' voting system - page 4. (Read 9276 times)
There shouldn't be many hard forks. The reversion to a larger block size and a new opcode for side chains are two that will likely occur. Perhaps re-enabling some of the other opcodes that are disabled. After that, the need for hard forks should be extremely rare. Look at IPv4 vs IPv6 or changes to TCP/IP, DNS, SMTP etc. Changes are few and far between for good reason. For bitcoin, the need for changes should be similarly rare and to make matters worse carry systemic, catastrophic risk to all of bitcoin. It is like trying to swap out an engine on an airplane while cruising at 30000 feet.
By the design of bitcoin changes should be extremely rare or only needed in the event of a catastrophe. And changes at the whim of a simple majority could easily cause it to morph into a fiat type system which would result in the destruction of bitcoin.
Consequently making voting easier and more common is a bad idea. Bitcoin isn't a democracy, it should be a dictatorship of math and protocol. Or perhaps if you prefer, the protocol is the Constitution and it should be rarely, if ever, changed. The option is that if someone wants a change, just create a new protocol/Constitution. Every change to the protocol creates an alt-coin. Anyone can change the protocol, create this alt-coin and convince people to switch.
I`m not a technical expert but I dont think you need any hardfork of the protocol to implement my idea.
You only need to code this feature inside the client.
No one said you did need a hard fork for the the idea. In fact, you don't even need to implement your idea in a client, just with RPC commands - it is easy enough that shouldn't be in the Bitcoin Core. A lightweight client would be better otherwise you'd have to download the entire block chain to vote.
Perhaps the assumption that you were proposing that people vote on forking changes bitcoin was wrong, but the follow-up discussion seemed to tend towards using this voting mechanism to vote on changes to bitcoin itself vs on who should win an US/EU election. ;-)
This is true. Just like you can have a lot of coins, support a certain change that you believe might raise the price, actually get it to raise or wait for it to raise and then dump. I agree that having a lot of coins most likely makes you are very interested in Bitcoin and it is unlikely that there are people like this that will just dump when they see a price they deem to be good. However I don't have many coins and I'm deeply interested in seeing Bitcoin succeed, for reasons much bigger than private profit and/or monetary gains and I want to be regarded and listened to if I have an idea that's really worth implementing.
I dont have a lot of coins, but I`m still interested in bitcoin.
This is unpowering the poor, exactly like the monetary system we already have in place, and I have to disagree with it. I can see what you mean with your voting system proposal, but I still don't think it's reasonable to have this. The risk of having a rogue party trying to disrupt Bitcoin is, I think, nothing compared to having a poor party trying to get a good point across and failing to be heard, in a system where you pay to be heard, or at least where you pay to get changes implemented. Governments would then be able to have a large stake on what concerns Bitcoin...
The poor is already unpowered by being poor. But in a free market they have the opportunity to rise above.
They can climb up the ladder anytime, but this is a ranking system and only those that earned their ranks can have the benefits of it.
Think of it like your forum account, you are a hero member, and that proves that you have earned it and are far above a newbie.
And that is how it should be.
If one is not willing to risk this amount for a greater good of Bitcoin, then I think one has to reconsider his stake in Bitcoin... Power comes with responsability. We would be doomed if a person with such power would be irresponsible.
Please don't take my replies as a negative criticism. It's just my opinion
I have a pretty strong opinion on this subject and I hope I got my point across just as nicely as you've been getting yours.That is just theory, but in reality, those that hold larger sums are much more responsible than their many counterparts with less funds. Otherwise they would have lost it long time ago.
Of course too much centralized power is not good either. We must find the perfect balance between that, and the free market will sort that out.
However I`d rather trust 20-30 professional and wealthy bitcoin entrepreneurs or specialists than 10,000 faucet newbies.
There shouldn't be many hard forks. The reversion to a larger block size and a new opcode for side chains are two that will likely occur. Perhaps re-enabling some of the other opcodes that are disabled. After that, the need for hard forks should be extremely rare. Look at IPv4 vs IPv6 or changes to TCP/IP, DNS, SMTP etc. Changes are few and far between for good reason. For bitcoin, the need for changes should be similarly rare and to make matters worse carry systemic, catastrophic risk to all of bitcoin. It is like trying to swap out an engine on an airplane while cruising at 30000 feet.
By the design of bitcoin changes should be extremely rare or only needed in the event of a catastrophe. And changes at the whim of a simple majority could easily cause it to morph into a fiat type system which would result in the destruction of bitcoin.
Consequently making voting easier and more common is a bad idea. Bitcoin isn't a democracy, it should be a dictatorship of math and protocol. Or perhaps if you prefer, the protocol is the Constitution and it should be rarely, if ever, changed. The option is that if someone wants a change, just create a new protocol/Constitution. Every change to the protocol creates an alt-coin. Anyone can change the protocol, create this alt-coin and convince people to switch.
I`m not a technical expert but I dont think you need any hardfork of the protocol to implement my idea.
You only need to code this feature inside the client.
The voting issuance would work like this:
-It would be set a minimum amount for example 1 BTC, or lower, so that to avoid spam, and this would be paid to miners in some way.
-The minimum amount can be paid like as a crowdfunding if multiple little guys want to vote, or if a larger entity wants to hold a voting then they can pay it directly
-But other than this anyone can issue the voting
Are you sure you would like this? This would mean that if I had 10000 BTC and you had 10 BTC my opinion would be more valid than yours... You can have 0 BTC and have very accurate and valid opinions about Bitcoin.
Exactly, because if you have no stake in it then you can just as likely to be a saboteur trying to sabotage bitcoin.
You can still have great ideas about anything, but the same way you have no decision in corporate affairs either, you need to be a majority shareholder to have a say in it.
If you are talented then you can still put out your opinions in a white paper, formally and backed with evidence, but it's just that the bitcoin holders have the final say in it, after all it's their coin.
This is true. Just like you can have a lot of coins, support a certain change that you believe might raise the price, actually get it to raise or wait for it to raise and then dump. I agree that having a lot of coins most likely makes you are very interested in Bitcoin and it is unlikely that there are people like this that will just dump when they see a price they deem to be good. However I don't have many coins and I'm deeply interested in seeing Bitcoin succeed, for reasons much bigger than private profit and/or monetary gains and I want to be regarded and listened to if I have an idea that's really worth implementing.
This is unpowering the poor, exactly like the monetary system we already have in place, and I have to disagree with it. I can see what you mean with your voting system proposal, but I still don't think it's reasonable to have this. The risk of having a rogue party trying to disrupt Bitcoin is, I think, nothing compared to having a poor party trying to get a good point across and failing to be heard, in a system where you pay to be heard, or at least where you pay to get changes implemented. Governments would then be able to have a large stake on what concerns Bitcoin...
Its because the 1 user holds more risk alone, he actually put 400$ of his money or labour in bitcoin , and for that risk he should be rewarded with voting power.
If one is not willing to risk this amount for a greater good of Bitcoin, then I think one has to reconsider his stake in Bitcoin... Power comes with responsability. We would be doomed if a person with such power would be irresponsible.
Please don't take my replies as a negative criticism. It's just my opinion
I have a pretty strong opinion on this subject and I hope I got my point across just as nicely as you've been getting yours. 
Its not a democracy and it should never be. We need intellectual specialists on deciding the best for bitcoin not uneducated dumbasses that know nothing about it.
You're wrong! Why else would people be voting for such a wonderful and intelligent man such as Trump in the US if democracy wasn't working 
If the masses were making decisions Bitcoin would most likely self destruct within a very short amount of time.
I also like the idea of voting and maybe if there are 2 or more options, generate needed adresses to vote into. From the winner devs get paid, loosers get back all. Win Win. Sounds good?
So basically you're saying that if I vote and my opinion "passes" I lose all my money? I don't see people voting in such a system. Did I misunderstand something? "Let's vote your coins out of your balance"
Or
"Let's change the mining algo so that every newbies gets 100 free bitcoins"
It sounds very dumb for bitcoin, yet these folks do the same thing in the fiat economy under democracy and socialism.
I`m starting to think that democracy itself was a huge mistake.
There shouldn't be many hard forks. The reversion to a larger block size and a new opcode for side chains are two that will likely occur. Perhaps re-enabling some of the other opcodes that are disabled. After that, the need for hard forks should be extremely rare. Look at IPv4 vs IPv6 or changes to TCP/IP, DNS, SMTP etc. Changes are few and far between for good reason. For bitcoin, the need for changes should be similarly rare and to make matters worse carry systemic, catastrophic risk to all of bitcoin. It is like trying to swap out an engine on an airplane while cruising at 30000 feet.
By the design of bitcoin changes should be extremely rare or only needed in the event of a catastrophe. And changes at the whim of a simple majority could easily cause it to morph into a fiat type system which would result in the destruction of bitcoin.
Consequently making voting easier and more common is a bad idea. Bitcoin isn't a democracy, it should be a dictatorship of math and protocol. Or perhaps if you prefer, the protocol is the Constitution and it should be rarely, if ever, changed. The option is that if someone wants a change, just create a new protocol/Constitution. Every change to the protocol creates an alt-coin. Anyone can change the protocol, create this alt-coin and convince people to switch.
Yes...let it so...create new alt-coins and it it is better...people will switch,but please let the actual bitcoin how it is...
Its not a democracy and it should never be. We need intellectual specialists on deciding the best for bitcoin not uneducated dumbasses that know nothing about it.
You're wrong! Why else would people be voting for such a wonderful and intelligent man such as Trump in the US if democracy wasn't working If the masses were making decisions Bitcoin would most likely self destruct within a very short amount of time.
I also like the idea of voting and maybe if there are 2 or more options, generate needed adresses to vote into. From the winner devs get paid, loosers get back all. Win Win. Sounds good?
So basically you're saying that if I vote and my opinion "passes" I lose all my money? I don't see people voting in such a system. Did I misunderstand something? "Let's vote your coins out of your balance"
Or
"Let's change the mining algo so that every newbies gets 100 free bitcoins"
It sounds very dumb for bitcoin, yet these folks do the same thing in the fiat economy under democracy and socialism.
I`m starting to think that democracy itself was a huge mistake.
There shouldn't be many hard forks. The reversion to a larger block size and a new opcode for side chains are two that will likely occur. Perhaps re-enabling some of the other opcodes that are disabled. After that, the need for hard forks should be extremely rare. Look at IPv4 vs IPv6 or changes to TCP/IP, DNS, SMTP etc. Changes are few and far between for good reason. For bitcoin, the need for changes should be similarly rare and to make matters worse carry systemic, catastrophic risk to all of bitcoin. It is like trying to swap out an engine on an airplane while cruising at 30000 feet.
By the design of bitcoin changes should be extremely rare or only needed in the event of a catastrophe. And changes at the whim of a simple majority could easily cause it to morph into a fiat type system which would result in the destruction of bitcoin.
Consequently making voting easier and more common is a bad idea. Bitcoin isn't a democracy, it should be a dictatorship of math and protocol. Or perhaps if you prefer, the protocol is the Constitution and it should be rarely, if ever, changed. The option is that if someone wants a change, just create a new protocol/Constitution. Every change to the protocol creates an alt-coin. Anyone can change the protocol, create this alt-coin and convince people to switch.
Who should be the Bitcoin Hitler ?
Godwin's law strikes again. Just because the traditional democracy system is flawed and should not be applicable, that does not mean that there is a need for a 'Hitler'. Things aren't simply black and white. Yes- we would be better off having quantum comps, all those new enldess colours :-)
Why do you want voting?
let it be so ...
let it be so ...
Who should be the Bitcoin Hitler ?
Godwin's law strikes again. Just because the traditional democracy system is flawed and should not be applicable, that does not mean that there is a need for a 'Hitler'. Things aren't simply black and white. Its not a democracy and it should never be. We need intellectual specialists on deciding the best for bitcoin not uneducated dumbasses that know nothing about it.
You're wrong! Why else would people be voting for such a wonderful and intelligent man such as Trump in the US if democracy wasn't working If the masses were making decisions Bitcoin would most likely self destruct within a very short amount of time.
I also like the idea of voting and maybe if there are 2 or more options, generate needed adresses to vote into. From the winner devs get paid, loosers get back all. Win Win. Sounds good?
So basically you're saying that if I vote and my opinion "passes" I lose all my money? I don't see people voting in such a system. Did I misunderstand something? "Let's vote your coins out of your balance"
Or
"Let's change the mining algo so that every newbies gets 100 free bitcoins"
It sounds very dumb for bitcoin, yet these folks do the same thing in the fiat economy under democracy and socialism.
I`m starting to think that democracy itself was a huge mistake.
Who should do the Bitcoin Hitler ?
Its not a democracy and it should never be. We need intellectual specialists on deciding the best for bitcoin not uneducated dumbasses that know nothing about it.
You're wrong! Why else would people be voting for such a wonderful and intelligent man such as Trump in the US if democracy wasn't working If the masses were making decisions Bitcoin would most likely self destruct within a very short amount of time.
I also like the idea of voting and maybe if there are 2 or more options, generate needed adresses to vote into. From the winner devs get paid, loosers get back all. Win Win. Sounds good?
So basically you're saying that if I vote and my opinion "passes" I lose all my money? I don't see people voting in such a system. Did I misunderstand something? "Let's vote your coins out of your balance"
Or
"Let's change the mining algo so that every newbies gets 100 free bitcoins"
It sounds very dumb for bitcoin, yet these folks do the same thing in the fiat economy under democracy and socialism.
I`m starting to think that democracy itself was a huge mistake.
Its not a democracy and it should never be. We need intellectual specialists on deciding the best for bitcoin not uneducated dumbasses that know nothing about it.
You're wrong! Why else would people be voting for such a wonderful and intelligent man such as Trump in the US if democracy wasn't working If the masses were making decisions Bitcoin would most likely self destruct within a very short amount of time.
I also like the idea of voting and maybe if there are 2 or more options, generate needed adresses to vote into. From the winner devs get paid, loosers get back all. Win Win. Sounds good?
So basically you're saying that if I vote and my opinion "passes" I lose all my money? I don't see people voting in such a system. Did I misunderstand something? Needs to be poperly designed, that yes, winners'll lose some money, but you get the thing implemented & devs are paid.
Loosers get mony back but nothing implemented.
All win win
Its not a democracy and it should never be. We need intellectual specialists on deciding the best for bitcoin not uneducated dumbasses that know nothing about it.
You're wrong! Why else would people be voting for such a wonderful and intelligent man such as Trump in the US if democracy wasn't working If the masses were making decisions Bitcoin would most likely self destruct within a very short amount of time.
I also like the idea of voting and maybe if there are 2 or more options, generate needed adresses to vote into. From the winner devs get paid, loosers get back all. Win Win. Sounds good?
So basically you're saying that if I vote and my opinion "passes" I lose all my money? I don't see people voting in such a system. Did I misunderstand something? You should be ashamed of the statements you are making towards poor and hard working people in this world. The current fiat system favors the rich and you want to apply this same corrupt system
to Bitcoin? This world would be a filthy shitty place, without the toilet cleaners, and for you to say that they do not have a say, is simply disrespectful towards them and other people doing these
kinds of jobs.
The gambler scenario was just an example, it could just as well be a rich kid with no values or experience or integrity or technical knowledge... having the biggest influence or vote. I would rather
have a toilet cleaner have a say, than some ignorant rich kid, who got lucky when he inherited all his wealth and decided to buy some Bitcoins for the fun of it or to brag to his friends.
Sorry mister egalitarian, bitcoin is a system of intellectuals, programmers and people who are expert in what they do.
Its not a democracy and it should never be. We need intellectual specialists on deciding the best for bitcoin not uneducated dumbasses that know nothing about it.
Ignorant rich kids lose their money fast, I`m talking about real valuable and disciplined people here that would form the intellectual elite of bitcoin.
What risk are you talking about? If both the poor person with 1 BTC and the rich person with 1000 BTC have their coin in cold storage, their risk is the same. 1 BTC to a poor person, is basically the
same as 1000 BTC for a rich guy. I also do not see the relevance of the "labor" you are talking about... The rich guy might have won the 1000 BTC in gambling and the poor guy might have cleaned
toilets for 6 months to have saved up for that 1 BTC hoard. The other flaw comes in with the signing of the address from coins in cold storage.
Nonsense, the risk isnt the same.
Bitcoin is objective man, you are basically saying that 1 BTC = 1000 BTC, which is bullshit.
Of course the 1000 BTC is worth more than 1 BTC, how can you even say such nonsense. And the risk is more too.
I can easily hold 1 BTC in an online wallet. But with 1000 BTC, i could not sleep well at night, so I rather have that in cold storage.
Haha trust me hardly any people win 1000 BTC in gambling so this is not even a remote issue. Or he gambles it again and loses it all, if he doesnt then he proven himself to be responsible and has the right to keep the 1000 BTC and also vote with it. If he loses it, then he is a moron, and doesnt get to vote.
The toilet cleaner has also worked hard for 1 BTC, but unfortunately that is how much his labour is worth, 1 BTC.
After all we dont want only toilet cleaners to vote on important bitcoin stuff, that would be very ashaming for bitcoin.
Signing the address from cold storage? What is the problem with that?
If you have good RNG then it should not be an issue.
You should be ashamed of the statements you are making towards poor and hard working people in this world. The current fiat system favors the rich and you want to apply this same corrupt system
to Bitcoin? This world would be a filthy shitty place, without the toilet cleaners, and for you to say that they do not have a say, is simply disrespectful towards them and other people doing these
kinds of jobs.
The gambler scenario was just an example, it could just as well be a rich kid with no values or experience or integrity or technical knowledge... having the biggest influence or vote. I would rather
have a toilet cleaner have a say, than some ignorant rich kid, who got lucky when he inherited all his wealth and decided to buy some Bitcoins for the fun of it or to brag to his friends.
I also like the idea of voting and maybe if there are 2 or more options, generate needed adresses to vote into. From the winner devs get paid, loosers get back all. Win Win. Sounds good?
What risk are you talking about? If both the poor person with 1 BTC and the rich person with 1000 BTC have their coin in cold storage, their risk is the same. 1 BTC to a poor person, is basically the
same as 1000 BTC for a rich guy. I also do not see the relevance of the "labor" you are talking about... The rich guy might have won the 1000 BTC in gambling and the poor guy might have cleaned
toilets for 6 months to have saved up for that 1 BTC hoard. The other flaw comes in with the signing of the address from coins in cold storage.
Nonsense, the risk isnt the same.
Bitcoin is objective man, you are basically saying that 1 BTC = 1000 BTC, which is bullshit.
Of course the 1000 BTC is worth more than 1 BTC, how can you even say such nonsense. And the risk is more too.
I can easily hold 1 BTC in an online wallet. But with 1000 BTC, i could not sleep well at night, so I rather have that in cold storage.
Haha trust me hardly any people win 1000 BTC in gambling so this is not even a remote issue. Or he gambles it again and loses it all, if he doesnt then he proven himself to be responsible and has the right to keep the 1000 BTC and also vote with it. If he loses it, then he is a moron, and doesnt get to vote.
The toilet cleaner has also worked hard for 1 BTC, but unfortunately that is how much his labour is worth, 1 BTC.
After all we dont want only toilet cleaners to vote on important bitcoin stuff, that would be very ashaming for bitcoin.
Signing the address from cold storage? What is the problem with that?
If you have good RNG then it should not be an issue.
The main flaw of this voting system is that it is based on the wrong idea that bitcoins has the same value to everyone.
The value of everything is subjective.
"My 10 BTC have an huge value against your 1000 BTC, I will not give them to no one for any possible thing, my precious bitcoins!"
The value of everything is subjective.
"My 10 BTC have an huge value against your 1000 BTC, I will not give them to no one for any possible thing, my precious bitcoins!"
A market is an aggregate of subjective opinions, that creates an objective opinion.
After all what is objective? The value-weighted-average of subjective opinion no?
So that means that if 1 say 1000 BTC can buy me a mansion, then it's only true if the mansion seller values the 1000 BTC by more than he values the mansion.
The parties each have to value the counterparty item more, that is why the BID & ASK prices exist.
The value of everything is subjective.
"My 10 BTC have an huge value against your 1000 BTC, I will not give them to no one for any possible thing, my precious bitcoins!"
No. That's subjective and related to sentimental value then. How you perceive the value of your coins is your thing, but objectively that does not change their value. Their value is determined by the market regardless whether you agree with it or not."My 10 BTC have an huge value against your 1000 BTC, I will not give them to no one for any possible thing, my precious bitcoins!"
It make take even 10 years to get to this point.
You can learn C++ yourself and implement it by then. 
Jump to: