Topic: 'Vote with your bitcoins' voting system - page 5. (Read 9276 times)

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. 

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!"

I just want to put out this idea first for consideration and see what other people think about it.

You will have plenty of time implementing it, and its not that urgent at the moment, this is just for the future to have a transparent opinion system.

It make take even 10 years to get to this point.

Exchanges do a lot of outgoing transactions, they would be forbidden to vote according to this system.

However they also hold coins of other people and it would be immoral to vote with their coins, perhaps even illegal because they impersonate other people's will.

Most folks would have to reposess their coins to avoid them being used for voting against their will.

1) Miners have a major impact today.
2) Exchanges don't have a lot of their own coins. They shouldn't time-lock the coins of their customers.

It is not the number of addresses that is important in the proposed system. This would not work anyhow as somebody could redistribute his wealth among many (as you've said). Again, it seems that people don't realize that this would just be another metric. However, OP without a BIP and communication with the developers I doubt that this or a similar system is going to be implemented. There are just things that are more important.

I don't see how this would be fair the mining pools and exchanges would have a major impact on this would it not?

In that case it's equal.

1000 satoshi x 100,000 poor people = 1 bitcoin voting power for 100,000 poor users

OR

1 bitcoin for 1 more established user


Yes it takes 100,000 poor users in this case to overthrow the voting power of that 1 user? Why? It's not because we are elitist or supremacists.

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.

The 1000 satoshi guy only put 5 seconds of his time in bitcoin by filling out a CAPTCHA.

---

So it's not supremacy or elitism, it's just risk & reward, and that is capitalism.

Nope, you are wrong, I live in a Capitalist world and I believe hard work needs to be rewarded. I do not believe in a FREE lunch for anyone, and would rather teach them how to fish, than feeding them

the fish. What I am trying to say is, these people ...{ Who might not have come from a privileged background and inheritance } and who works hard for their money, should be made part of the voting

system. What is the difference between one rich guys distributing his 10 000 Bitcoins to 100 000 addresses and voting with that and having 100 000 poor people voting with their meager earnings?

Do we exclude the poor people, because they do not have enough money to vote? Socialism has nothing to do with this... I am a realist and a capitalist sympathetic to the poor. 

They are socialists, so they want everyone to be equal of course

A system could be implemented to avoid transactions I guess (albeit this would be trivial).

That's the right question. Even though this is a consensus based algorithm, I don't see how somebody who just went to a faucet and got some dust should be equal to somebody who spent years in the ecosystem (both personally and professionally). These people most likely do not even run a full node, so exactly how did they plan to "have a say in the matter"? This is rather a very complex 'issue', but what the others failed to realize in your thread is that this is just supposed to be another metric (nothing has to be decided based on these votes).

But they dont have a stake in it.

How can you compare 1 million users who have 100 satoshi with 1 user that has 1 bitcoin?

It's uncomparable. Basically anyone can have 100 satoshi, just e-mail 100 satoshi to all your friends on facebook.

But to have 1 bitcoin means that you actually hold real bitcoin and have a stake in it.

If the blocksize debate has been caused by an increase in transactions, do you really want to introduce a system that creates a further increase in transactions that are of no benefit to the money exchange service?

So what you are saying is, the only people with a say in the matter is the people who have enough money? What happened to the vision of helping the unbanked and all those poor people who have not

had a say or a opinion for years under the old fiat system? In Kenya for instance, a lot of people use M-Pesa on a daily basis, to trade, so they are part of a bigger system. When they get paid, they

spend that money to survive or to pay debt. There are no savings or hoarding for these people, they simply survive from day to day... Do they have no say, because they have no saving or enough

money to vote? ...These are the people, who use that technology on a daily basis... Nope, I do not agree with this. 

Yes, if those 1 million users only hold dust amounts of bitcoin, then they dont really matter, nor have contributed anything much to bitcoin and are just newbies.

But that person who collected over 10,000 BTC must run some really big website or service that is a huge part of the community.

So yes in this case that 1 CEO is worth the same amount than 1 million dust users.





No address count doesnt matter. Read the first post FFS, you cant double vote with the same coins, but you can vote from multple addresses to add up your aggregate voting share if you hold coins in multiple addresses.

so 1 million people with satoshi dust amounts or 0.01 each would outweigh, lets say a coinbase coldstore of 10,000btc.? im being sarcastic i know its the opposite

so the CEO of coinbase can literally veto the wishes of 1 million people(who own just $4 each) by coinbase showing 10,000btc.
so the CEO of coinbase can veto the wishes of 10,000 people(who own $420 each)  by coinbase showing 10,000btc
so the CEO of coinbase can veto the wishes of 100 people(who own $42,000 each)  by coinbase showing 10,000btc
so the CEO of coinbase can veto the wishes of 10 people(who own $420,000 each)  by coinbase showing 10,000btc

anyone else see the flaw in this? one person able to veto between 10-1mill users?

however
this seems more fair.. until we see someone with 10,000 coins splits them up into 10,000 addresses to again gain veto power over 10,000 people


the most easiest thing is to not do any of these side issue voting systems. but instead include the code (without any refusal) and if the community adopt it, then the consensus is reached.
if its not wanted it wont get activated. it will just sit there as unused code. meaningless to the network

doing crappy voting and refusing to add the code to even see if people want it. is not helpful.
by delaying and refusing to even have the code available is a loud display of the polar opposite of trying to find consensus

in short, just add the code and see what happens.. only those refusing to release code are the lemmings that are causing their own contention.

To make it a little bit more fair, you can do all parties has the same voting power, along as he owns more than 1 coin, regardless how many coins he has. Of course if you have 1 million bitcoins, you have absolute voting power.

Only one person has 1 million coins in this world ...

I like this idea. Consensus is very hard if not impossible to achieve so sort of voting system would make important changes and implementations lot easier. Situation with Bitcoin as it is now is pretty bad so voting system (if we make good one) would help a lot in my opinion.

Yes, whatever system is more efficient, but this also encourages saving, only people who save have access to vote, so we know that more responsible people are voters, rather than just cowboys that spend like crazy and would not be quality voters normally.

So if you have any savings that you dont touch for atleast 1 month, you are eligible for voting, would be a great filter.

---

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


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 not feasible. The advantages of having such a system do not justify the work needed to implement it. I also don't see how this could be implemented on the code (but I'm not a coding expert). Also, this is why we have places to discuss...

And this too:


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.

You're going to vote with your bitcoins on implementing a wishing system for devs to a write a code which the miners then shall take?

And you don't see any problems convincing any of the parties involved to actually obey it?

It's not going to happen.