Bitcoin Forum

I just read Interesting article from bitcoinmagazine.com

Bitrated CEO Nadav Ivgi developed an early implementation of HODL.voting, a coin-voting solution with an interesting twist. To vote, users need to lock up their bitcoins, losing access to them for some time.

The theory is that by attaching a real cost to voting — loss of liquidity and ability to sell — we can get more reliable signaling, the Israeli developer thinks.

The concept behind existing coin-voting schemes like Bitcoinocracy is simple. Anyone who holds bitcoins can use the associated private keys to sign a message. This message acts as a vote, and all votes are added up. This definitively proves that all votes correspond to the ownership of bitcoins, allowing for a one-coin-one-vote type of system.

Do you think this is a good solution?

this is the website for vote : https://hodl.voting/

There's no need to create a system where you actually lock up the coins.

The site should just take a snapshot of the BTC blockchain once per day, and if the coins are still in the address add 1 point.  If any of them have moved, then stop adding points for that address.  That would make a lot more sense, since it gives people the freedom to spend their coins while still incentivising them to HODL (so that they can make their opinion heard).

However, I consider all voting systems based on how many coins you hold as dumb.  It's irritatingly - people who own more coins are not necessarily superior in their opinions, and it also means that you're giving a signed message with a high number of coins.  People who hold very large amounts of coins in a paper wallet, for example, are unlikely to do this due to the fear of losing their privacy, which means it doesn't accurately show the economic majority anyway.