Bitcoin Forum

By now it's clear that the majority of people reject the idea that wealth is proportional to the trustworthiness of a node, so how about this: instead of directly giving supernode status to wealthiest people we vote for supernodes (which may not necessarily be wealthy) with our money, in the ratio of 1 coin = 1 vote. This way poorer people can band together and surpass the voting power of the rich ones to elect a supernode of their choosing. It also allows the rich to relinquish their supernode power and give it to a more trusted member of the network. Voting would be done with a special transaction which basically says that any money held by the sending address is a vote for node X.  

Would this work better?

For reference, here is the original system: http://solidcoin.info/solidcoin-most-secure-currency.php

Voting is probably preferable to a dictatorship. However youre not accounting for the future when supernodes will be distributed and competing ?

I like the concept of voting, but it seems like it wil bloat the blockchain.

So now a 51% attack would involve getting 51% of the coins.

Actually if there are multiple contenders, 5% may be all that's needed to win the vote.

51% votes to take the other 49% coins and theres fuck all you can do about it ?

Democracy is and always will be two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

Unless you can come up with a system for voting thats as elegant as bitcoin is for currency you wont get anywhere.

Doesn't that still mean that the others can perform a 51% supernode attack and probabilisticly rewrite the block chain at will?