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.

I voted merchants because everything depends on them at this time. BTC is worthless if there are no shops to accept it as a payment. Also I didn't want to chose "every bitcoin owner" because that includes people who have 0.001 BTC whuch comes from faucets. Or does that mean people owning at least one full BTC? If that's the case, I've thought of a plan to organize a vote among BTC holders: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1168576.0

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.

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?

Of course. I'm always surprised when I read that some people want to use BTC to buy a soda. I always use cash for all my shopping. Also I don't want to pollute the blockchain with small transactions.

It seems most people here are from rich countries. It's really awful how the welfare state appears like the normal thing. I suggest that instead of making cash handouts to the poor, the rich countries would pay them a one way ticket to Ethiopia. There, those folks would quickly learn to make a living, or die.

Just one little question: how much time per week is one supposed to work to earn 0.1 BTC?
There are people from various countries here, so it would help if you could give some information on that matter.
Readers in the UK do not have the same expectations as those in Vietnam, you know...

That's certainly a step in the right direction, but it's a very small one. Giving money to charities is nice, but we want to do business with BTC. Barclays has yet to propose anything regarding that...

That's what I'm saying. Welfare systems are a magnet for migrants, and migrations have to be stopped for the sake of the welfare state. Imagine a world without any welfare. There would be much more freedom to travel and move, that's what I want.

I wish I could be optimist but I'm not. I see the coming fork (if it comes) as a huge image problem. Investors will not move till this issue is settled. BTC's quite low, and nobody shall expect it move up before that Damocles sword is being put away for good. BTC's price will remain low, and number transactions will not change much. BTC deserves better!

I wish I could do something to bring a compromise.

Kicking people off welfare isn't enough. All welfare programs should be terminated. They were invented by Bismarck and later promoted by Mussolini. Both fascists looking for supporters. Welfare programs are the greatest inequalities in the world. Nigerians or Ethiopians do not have access to any kind of welfare, and yet they manage to survive. Better than that, their population is growing fast. Sorry to point it out but this proves that the average African is much smarter than the average first world guy on welfare.

Welfare programs are also a strong reason for Africans to immigrate to rich countries, which close their borders very precisely not to let foreigners gain access to welfare. Welfare and borders are the same thing: restrictions to freedom.

OK, so let's forget Africa. Plenty of people would appreciate free food in Russia. Putin has seized those illegal imports and he should have given them to the local poor people, but he chose to destroy them to make it clear that helping the poor isn't one of its priorities.

I'm not American so there's nothing I can do but I would definitely support Rand Paul if I could. His ideas are a close match to those of the pioneers who've made the US in the 18th century. He's the man to get America back to its roots, in total opposition to Hilary who would turn America into a socialist failure like most European countries.

I haven't been to India for several years, but I think there's a lot of potential for BTC there. Not for all Indians though. This is a huge country with very different kinds of people. Only one part of the people may use and appreciate BTC, but that still means millions.

It seems I've always seen topics on that subject since I've joined this board. I didn't pay much attention to them. It was only last month when there was a peak in transactions that I learned the problem was real. Early July, I had one transaction which took more than 12 hours to get confirmed. So I've been following the debate much more closely since then. I guess the people who talked about it much earlier had a better understanding of BTC than me.

I still believe the Foundation may prove useful sometimes in the future. I understand many people distrust them, but they now have an opportunity to regain some trust, so if they're smart (maybe they're not), they should seize it. Besides the blocksize problem, another issue is that the BTC community is divided. I could invest more money into BTC, but that division is telling me to wait till things are settled.

Yes, I went to one meetup. It wasn't very interesting, though. There were some people very supportive of BTC in the assistance, but the speaker was much more of a critic. I still think of meetups as a good idea, they're certainly useful, but don't go there as I did only because it's a BTC meetup. Check what will be the subject(s), and who will speak.

Well, could be the opportunity to save it from the brink. Anyway, I'm just looking for solutions. The blocksize problem has to go and I certainly like the idea of a consensus, but I don't see one emerging soon.

If you look at what's been going on this past month, it's exactly the opposite which has happenedBTC has lost way more value than the yuan. And the yuan's devaluation wasn't market-driven, it was the Chinese government which ordered it.

No. I haven't read anything about the foundation for a long time, maybe a year. I don't spend much time following that kind of things. Please, tell me more about it. Did I miss something?