We could build a democracy out of bitcoin, here's how

countryfree

legendary

Activity: 3052

Merit: 1047

Your country may be your worst enemy

Quote from: teukon on September 08, 2015, 08:19:25 PM

Quote from: countryfree on September 08, 2015, 06:59:06 PM

I guess this isn't going anywhere, though. I was looking for a way to solve the blocksize issue, but my idea hasn't had enough support so far. When I look at all the posts on this topic, there is clearly more people against the idea than there are supporters. Well, it was worth trying.

I appreciate the effort.

Thanks! The idea is in the air. Someone may pick it up someday if it ever becomes useful to find out what large BTC holders really want. I'm not expecting that in the near future, but BTC shall have a long life.

teukon

legendary

Activity: 1246

Merit: 1004

Quote from: countryfree on September 08, 2015, 06:59:06 PM

I guess this isn't going anywhere, though. I was looking for a way to solve the blocksize issue, but my idea hasn't had enough support so far. When I look at all the posts on this topic, there is clearly more people against the idea than there are supporters. Well, it was worth trying.

I appreciate the effort.

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3766

Merit: 1368

Quote from: wxa7115 on September 08, 2015, 05:57:25 PM

I don’t see how expressing our intention in this way is any different than doing it in a forum; there will no way to enforce this and make others acknowledge our “decision”.

If we built voting contracts on the Bitcoin blockchain, like with Counterparty, and nobody could vote unless his contract was on the blockchain, we might be able to solve a lot of voting/election fraud problems.

stuff0577

full member

Activity: 138

Merit: 100

More stuff will come.

Quote from: countryfree on September 04, 2015, 08:23:13 PM

Quote from: defaced on September 02, 2015, 08:46:45 PM

Quote from: ajas on September 02, 2015, 08:00:27 PM

We do not have a democracy and we certainly will never have it.

Satoshi Nakamoto designed the system in a way that the decisions are
made by the miners. He certainly thought this would enforce some kind
of democracy: Everybody could run a miner on his PC and setting up
some kind of dedicated high performance computer systems just for this
purpose should not pay out.

He was not aware of ASICs and the concentration of mining power in the
hands of a few people.

However, even if miners finally can decide what to do, there are
strong forcing for a consensus and for a conservative behaviour:
- miners who create a fork will sit alone on their chain.
- miners have to respect the technical constraints (bandwidth etc)
  otherwise they are lost.
- Miners have to serve the community, otherwise the price of bitcoin
  will fall and they will not make any profit (in fiat).
- Large miners depend on profits in fiat: they have expenses in
  electricity, hardware cost, infrastructure, etc.
- Small miners can ignore these costs, so there is still some chance
  for democracy. Be aware of your power!

The code developers do not have any power. Everybody can set up a fork
(as XT). But in order to succeed he has to achieve consensus.

To conclude: I like bitcoin very much. It is anarchy with a very
strong forcing for consensus. It now has survived for approximately 5
years. It is really interesting to see how this system will evolve
further under real world conditions. Bitcoin is in beta status and a big
experiment. I am looking forward into the future.

yup exactly,miners vote with their hashing power.

Bitcoiners could vote with their funds too its just not directly built into the software. But there is no reason coinage voting couldnt exist.

Yes, consensus. There's nothing wrong with that except that the actual quantity of people needed to get it is probably too small. We would have the same problem with coinage voting, but it would be better as there are always more and more people owning BTC, in total opposition to miners, who are fewer and fewer.

Most of us bitcoiners should participate and also bring our opinion on the said topic. We have also created a poll question with this one. You can use your bitcoin signatures to vote for your chosen opinion here http://coin-vote.com/poll/55e8a33299baadff0a34acb7

countryfree

legendary

Activity: 3052

Merit: 1047

Your country may be your worst enemy

Quote from: teukon on September 07, 2015, 07:54:02 PM

Quote from: countryfree on September 07, 2015, 07:22:17 PM

I kinda like your idea of 2 outputs with a "blank" one. A possible issue could be that it would not be doable with all clients. Much organization would be needed...

Yes, I was just trying to design a transaction that would be considered "standard" by the reference client. More exotic designs (such as having multiple OP_RETURN outputs) would be difficult to propogate.

If you want it to be so that a vote can be cast easily by most/all clients then you have more of a challenge. Without some coin control, the voter would have no easy way to tie his wallets balance to a particular vote. This will basically be by design; good wallets protect the user's financial privacy by default. With coin control, a user might replace the OP_RETURN output with a regular transaction, burning a small number of satoshi to a special voting address. The number of satoshi burnt would correspond to the choice of the voter. Expect to meet resistance with such a proposal though as these voting outputs would not be "provably unspendable", tantamount to an attack on pruning nodes.

I've thought of coin control. That was one of the reason behind the choice of a speedy vote. No more than 24 hours, with voters making the pledge not to make any other transaction during the allowed voting period.

I guess this isn't going anywhere, though. I was looking for a way to solve the blocksize issue, but my idea hasn't had enough support so far. When I look at all the posts on this topic, there is clearly more people against the idea than there are supporters. Well, it was worth trying.

wxa7115

hero member

Activity: 2702

Merit: 704

I don’t see how expressing our intention in this way is any different than doing it in a forum; there will no way to enforce this and make others acknowledge our “decision”.

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3766

Merit: 1368

Quote from: TransaDox on September 08, 2015, 04:40:58 PM

Quote from: BADecker on September 08, 2015, 04:17:55 PM

Democracy is not the government of choice. It is better, perhaps, than dictatorship. But it actually IS a form of dictatorship. Democracy is dictatorship by the majority. And because the dictates of the majority must be directed, there is still control of the whole by the few.

The answer is, let everyone be free to do and be everything that he wants. The only time he should be controlled by the people, is when he harms someone or damages his property. Otherwise, complete freedom.

After all. We are all certainly more capable of ruling our own life than anyone else is.

I think you are confusing democracy with a technical method of communicating ones desire for a choice given to them.

The simple dictionary definitions might suggest this. But when you get into the nitty-gritty of how a democracy works, it is just as I said in simple terms. From http://www.ait.org.tw/infousa/zhtw/docs/whatsdem/whatdm2.htm:

Quote

...

Majority Rule and Minority Rights
All democracies are systems in which citizens freely make political decisions by majority rule. But rule by the majority is not necessarily democratic: No one, for example, would call a system fair or just that permitted 51 percent of the population to oppress the remaining 49 percent in the name of the majority. In a democratic society, majority rule must be coupled with guarantees of individual human rights that, in turn, serve to protect the rights of minorities--whether ethnic, religious, or political, or simply the losers in the debate over a piece of controversial legislation. The rights of minorities do not depend upon the goodwill of the majority and cannot be eliminated by majority vote. The rights of minorities are protected because democratic laws and institutions protect the rights of all citizens.

...

It is just as I said. In a democracy, the majority sets the tone, and then the few regulate the many by interpreting the tone as they wish.

TransaDox

full member

Activity: 219

Merit: 102

Quote from: BADecker on September 08, 2015, 04:17:55 PM

Democracy is not the government of choice. It is better, perhaps, than dictatorship. But it actually IS a form of dictatorship. Democracy is dictatorship by the majority. And because the dictates of the majority must be directed, there is still control of the whole by the few.

The answer is, let everyone be free to do and be everything that he wants. The only time he should be controlled by the people, is when he harms someone or damages his property. Otherwise, complete freedom.

After all. We are all certainly more capable of ruling our own life than anyone else is.

I think you are confusing democracy with a technical method of communicating ones desire for a choice given to them.

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3766

Merit: 1368

Democracy is not the government of choice. It is better, perhaps, than dictatorship. But it actually IS a form of dictatorship. Democracy is dictatorship by the majority. And because the dictates of the majority must be directed, there is still control of the whole by the few.

The answer is, let everyone be free to do and be everything that he wants. The only time he should be controlled by the people, is when he harms someone or damages his property. Otherwise, complete freedom.

After all. We are all certainly more capable of ruling our own life than anyone else is.

TransaDox

full member

Activity: 219

Merit: 102

Quote from: countryfree on September 01, 2015, 06:47:45 PM

We have a governance problem right now with the block size issue. It's not easy getting a consensus, it might even be impossible, so I wonder if it could be possible to organize a vote. Here's how we could do it.

To participate, you'd need to own BTC, and have several wallets, but I guess all of us do.

I would move, say, 5 BTC, from one of my wallets to another of my wallets, on a given day. The trick would be to embed in that transaction some code (which would have to be agreed upon beforehand), which would mean "I support XT" or "I support BIP 100". The transaction would be in the blockchain, and at the end of the day, some bot would calculate how many BTC have been moved with "I support XT" or "I support BIP 100".

I understand this system would give more voting rights to those who own the most BTC, but that doesn't worry me because I believe the more BTC you own, the best choice you will make to protect your investment. But we would need a system to prevent voters voting several times. I suggest that to have their votes validated, there should be no other transactions from the receiving wallet on voting day.

Now, since I'm not much of a techie, is that possible? And is it a good idea?

How about anyone that wants to vote, vanity gen some addresses say

1BIPa101......
1BIPa102......

Everyone that wants to vote puts 1 BTC in their first choice, 2 BTC in their second 3BTC in their 3rd [or reverse order-whatever] address and leaves it there for as long as the voting is open. We don't say when the votes will be counted but give a rough indication of sometime in October, say. Then we count up the number of addresses of each in the block chain that have a single transaction of 1,2,3 BTC incoming (ignore those that move it out again). Once the voting is over, you can move your coin.

kromtar

full member

Activity: 172

Merit: 100

contracorriente

Democracy is a lie, a minority rules over the majority imposing rigged rules and deceiving the masses.

It's done and don't have anything to do with how bitcoin works.

RealBitcoin

hero member

Activity: 854

Merit: 1009

JAYCE DESIGNS - http://bit.ly/1tmgIwK

Quote from: countryfree on September 06, 2015, 08:09:33 AM

Quote from: RealBitcoin on September 05, 2015, 09:21:37 AM

Quote from: Zz on September 01, 2015, 06:51:02 PM

We don't want democracy. In democracies 10 sheeps vote is better than 9 professors. The right one is not always the most voted. I'm strongly against this proposition.

Indeed bitcoin should be run as a corporation.

It should be % ownership based voting, just like in a corporation.

The fact that 100000 newbies come in, each with 10 satoshis gained from faucet payments, just to distort the voting mechanism is a bad idea.

Democracy is flawed, both in real life, as in here, we need a capitalist solution here, so it should be a % ownership based vote!

In the very early days of democracy, say in the 17th century, it was widely accepted that only the rich, those who paid tax, were allowed to participate in any kind of vote. Voting rights were progressively extended to every man, then every woman.

I`m not saying only the rich, but i`m saying proportional to the % they hold.

After all bitcoin is an investment, and those who hold the most / risk the most of their money in bitcoin, should be the ones that pull the strings.

Would you like your company that you own 100% be run by half-idiots who dont have a clue about company running just because of the sake of democracy?

Sorry but demoncracy never worked.

tonycamp

member

Activity: 84

Merit: 10

i can not configure how do we do a democray into this BTC i mean you need a vote and payed? its against freedom

xhoneyael

sr. member

Activity: 462

Merit: 250

www.AntiBitcoinTalk.com

it not a good idea to make a voting system.
just use what you think is right..

gogxmagog

legendary

Activity: 1456

Merit: 1010

Ad maiora!

Sounds to me like OP is suggesting a sort of referendum. I get where he's coming from but I think he's misguided. I own some btc, but I really don't understand the whole thing enough to feel qualified to vote. I would simply be guessing. Just like most voters do in a democracy. Wether they know it or not.
So far, the consensus system has worked in my favour, so it's the best option IMO. I also win a few at the $2 window at the track from time to time. Still doesn't mean I know what I'm doing, despite what I tell everybody in the clubhouse afterwards.

teukon

legendary

Activity: 1246

Merit: 1004

Quote from: countryfree on September 07, 2015, 07:22:17 PM

I kinda like your idea of 2 outputs with a "blank" one. A possible issue could be that it would not be doable with all clients. Much organization would be needed...

Yes, I was just trying to design a transaction that would be considered "standard" by the reference client. More exotic designs (such as having multiple OP_RETURN outputs) would be difficult to propogate.

If you want it to be so that a vote can be cast easily by most/all clients then you have more of a challenge. Without some coin control, the voter would have no easy way to tie his wallets balance to a particular vote. This will basically be by design; good wallets protect the user's financial privacy by default. With coin control, a user might replace the OP_RETURN output with a regular transaction, burning a small number of satoshi to a special voting address. The number of satoshi burnt would correspond to the choice of the voter. Expect to meet resistance with such a proposal though as these voting outputs would not be "provably unspendable", tantamount to an attack on pruning nodes.

Quote from: countryfree on September 07, 2015, 07:32:38 PM

I've just discovered that someone has already done what I've been thinking about.

http://coin-vote.com/

I don't like this way they do things, though.

From their FAQ:

How do I vote?

You first select your choice on a question, then press "Submit". You will be given a "Message to be signed", along with two empty fields. Go to your bitcoin wallet, choose an address that holds funds and use your wallet or bitcoin key to sign the message. You have to put the address (or TXID) which you used to make the signature in the first field on the coin-vote website, and the signature produced by your wallet in the second. Then, click submit. Your vote will be verified and counted.

I'm not comfortable doing this.

Why not? What is it that makes you uncomfortable?

The main difference between this approach and ours is in whether the votes are store on-chain or off-chain. Another, more practical difference is in the wallet features needed to cast a vote (message signing/verification is more common than OP_RETURN support).

countryfree

legendary

Activity: 3052

Merit: 1047

Your country may be your worst enemy

I've just discovered that someone has already done what I've been thinking about.

http://coin-vote.com/

I don't like this way they do things, though.

From their FAQ:

How do I vote?

You first select your choice on a question, then press "Submit". You will be given a "Message to be signed", along with two empty fields. Go to your bitcoin wallet, choose an address that holds funds and use your wallet or bitcoin key to sign the message. You have to put the address (or TXID) which you used to make the signature in the first field on the coin-vote website, and the signature produced by your wallet in the second. Then, click submit. Your vote will be verified and counted.

I'm not comfortable doing this.

countryfree

legendary

Activity: 3052

Merit: 1047

Your country may be your worst enemy

Quote from: teukon on September 07, 2015, 03:17:35 AM

My first thought would be for a voting transaction to be a transaction with one input (say 5 BTC as above) and two outputs:

5 BTC: OP_DUP OP_HASH160 OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG
0 BTC: OP_RETURN PUSHDATA()

Organising this to occur on a single day would be difficult. Perhaps people could vote months in advance of a set block number. Once this set block is generated and sufficently well buried, the voting transactions still unspent at that point could be summed.

It's an interesting idea but there may be some problems with it. Perhaps these can be fixed.

For one, I could imagine a powerful interest buying many bitcoins, voting, and immediately selling the bitcoins again. It's tenuous to suggest that large bitcoin holders will make good decisions or even have Bitcoin's interest at heart. You could counter this by making the voting transactions unspendable for a number of years (protocol change I think) but this may overly discourage voting.

Another thing to bear in mind is that these votes will be public when they are cast. You might want to think about tactical voting and/or encryption.

PS: I'd avoid the term "democracy" in future proposals because you'll generate noise (as witnessed in this thread) and because Bitcoin itself doesn't have a concept of person so a democratic, protocol-level mechanism is impossible. "stake voting" is perhaps more accurate.

"Stake voting", you're probably right on that. It would be pretty much like a big firm, where the biggest shareholders have the last word. I hadn't thought about people buying then selling BTC to gain voting rights, but I don't see it as a big issue since it should be really expensive with prices going up if many people buy at the same time, then going down if everybody sells again at the same time. Voting process shall be as quick as possible, but how can this be an issue when you'll vote at home?

I kinda like your idea of 2 outputs with a "blank" one. A possible issue could be that it would not be doable with all clients. Much organization would be needed...

teukon

legendary

Activity: 1246

Merit: 1004

Quote from: countryfree on September 01, 2015, 06:47:45 PM

We have a governance problem right now with the block size issue. It's not easy getting a consensus, it might even be impossible, so I wonder if it could be possible to organize a vote. Here's how we could do it.

To participate, you'd need to own BTC, and have several wallets, but I guess all of us do.

I would move, say, 5 BTC, from one of my wallets to another of my wallets, on a given day. The trick would be to embed in that transaction some code (which would have to be agreed upon beforehand), which would mean "I support XT" or "I support BIP 100". The transaction would be in the blockchain, and at the end of the day, some bot would calculate how many BTC have been moved with "I support XT" or "I support BIP 100".

I understand this system would give more voting rights to those who own the most BTC, but that doesn't worry me because I believe the more BTC you own, the best choice you will make to protect your investment. But we would need a system to prevent voters voting several times. I suggest that to have their votes validated, there should be no other transactions from the receiving wallet on voting day.

Now, since I'm not much of a techie, is that possible? And is it a good idea?

My first thought would be for a voting transaction to be a transaction with one input (say 5 BTC as above) and two outputs:

5 BTC: OP_DUP OP_HASH160 OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG
0 BTC: OP_RETURN PUSHDATA()

Organising this to occur on a single day would be difficult. Perhaps people could vote months in advance of a set block number. Once this set block is generated and sufficently well buried, the voting transactions still unspent at that point could be summed.

It's an interesting idea but there may be some problems with it. Perhaps these can be fixed.

For one, I could imagine a powerful interest buying many bitcoins, voting, and immediately selling the bitcoins again. It's tenuous to suggest that large bitcoin holders will make good decisions or even have Bitcoin's interest at heart. You could counter this by making the voting transactions unspendable for a number of years (protocol change I think) but this may overly discourage voting.

Another thing to bear in mind is that these votes will be public when they are cast. You might want to think about tactical voting and/or encryption.

PS: I'd avoid the term "democracy" in future proposals because you'll generate noise (as witnessed in this thread) and because Bitcoin itself doesn't have a concept of person so a democratic, protocol-level mechanism is impossible. "stake voting" is perhaps more accurate.

countryfree

legendary

Activity: 3052

Merit: 1047

Your country may be your worst enemy

Quote from: Q7 on September 06, 2015, 09:47:23 AM

Even if a result was reached from the voting let's say in favor of increasing the blocksize, how sure are we that the opposer would accept the result and then move on with life? This issue will still be left hanging and there are bound to be people not wanting to accept the result and will give all sorts of reason to cry foul.

This hardly matters, just look at politics. Some Americans are not seeing Obama as their president because is a black muslim, but he's in the White House, and this is what matters to most onlookers. Right now, many BTC investors are worried because they don't know where BTC's heading. If there was a majority towards one precise direction, that would make them confident again. Some miners may not be happy about the outcome, but nobody will care about them since they are a minority.

Topic: We could build a democracy out of bitcoin, here's how (Read 1961 times)