Topic: We could build a democracy out of bitcoin, here's how - page 2. (Read 1962 times)

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.

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.

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!

I don't know if I agree with the premise of using bitcoin holdings as votes but I'll contribute this anyway. As far as solving the double-voting issue, I've heard alt/sidechain Credits is able to distinguish Bitcoin already used to claim its credits from "fresh" Bitcoin. If someone were to implement a voting sidechain or something like that, the Credits code could help with it.

Suppose we do this. What will be the end? For which will serve this activity? We are not developers and no one will hear what we have made. Maybe to pass the time it will be a good joke bu that can be the maximum we can arrive.

Democracy make all of us croos the limit. we show up the human right overly. and finnaly we hate the rules,we hate to be ruled. and war everywhere soon.. 

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.

2 coders want to take control, to help business buddies from like another 6 who also want to help business buddies from the miners who want profits when tis all controlled by market forces.

so winning the battle may just lose them the war

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.

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.

i'm more a bitcoin is a solution looking for a problem type person 

I'm very disappointed nobody seems to see that what I'm proposing would make BTC more democratic than it is. Oligarchy, or meritocracy, is pretty much what we're having now and nobody wants this to change. OK, I got it.

OK, and who decides who those people are?
And how is it any different than what we have now with the blocksize debate?
It's either Core or XT, right?

Which is your asylum of preference, kelsey? Your not another one of the Room 101 people are you?  

aka the lunatics running the asylum 

+2

and we've already got one. The commits to the Bitcoin github repo are judged on their merit. By just a couple of people, who just so happen to have exercised good judgment so far.

Maybe if the quorum was made higher, then we'd get better decision making. Don't know about that, the sheeps and professors analogy from cakir is very apt.

I partially agree with you...
I believe that everyone should have the same right to vote and his vote count the same as others... that would be truly democratic.
The option you are presenting is not democratic. It looks more like an Oligarky or should I say the Majority's dictatorship...??

I've NOT said this was the perfect system. Besides, BTC is actually hardly better. My proposal would increase the number of people who have a say in BTC's future.

Now, I hope someone could reply about the technical feasibility of my idea.

You might as well stick with the financial system we already have then and not even worry about BTC, as the current system is run by the people who control the most $$. If your ideal system is already in existence, why are you looking elsewhere? After all, you originally said: , just substitute $$ for BTC and you already have the perfect system according to your vision.

Meritocracy, oligarchy, I'm very familiar with those terms.

My proposal would be quite meritocratic, assuming those who own the most BTC have more merit. It would also be much more democratic than the present situation, since actually there are very, very few people deciding about the block size issue we're facing: miners. Nobody else but miners. Miners choose to adopt XT or not. My proposal would enlarge the number of voters to anyone owning BTC.