@CIYAM Pty. Ltd. Sorry, I don't see an equivalent of cbeast's step 2 in your proposal. Also... - each "vote" contains an encrypted message (that only the party and the organisers can unlock) then only if this message has the right value is it considered an actual vote (this permits voters to send one or more dummy votes along with their real vote)
Then only the organizers can decrypt the votes and sum them, right? Where's the decentralization then? @cbeast Can you explain the step 2 in more detail? How can you give an address to each registered voter in the district without knowing what address your gave to each voter? Also, how can you generate addresses without knowing the private key? Simple. It's exactly the same way a merchant creates a unique address for every purchase. Every ballot is like a menu with all unique addresses for every candidate. The private key issue is a problem that could be addressed by separating powers and having the public keys assigned to candidates by an independent third party. After the election, the holder of the private keys can move the voting funds back to the local communities coffers or some other public trust. |
|
|
|
Here's my point. What's to stop a corrupt authority from extorting btc from citizens to fund mining for the banks? Eventually, governments, banks, and big corporations will own most of the mining power anyway, but why make it easy for them by letting them have that power cheap? It's easier to find a mining pool to extort than have to compete on an even playing field with everyone.
tl;dr - On a theoretical level proof of stake seems great, but it is susceptable to the law of unintended consequences.
You are an idiot. Seriously, some programmers may be very book smart but have little common sense about real world issues. Get a life. my response was to cunicula not you Heh, I haven't had my coffee yet. Apologies to you Costia. |
|
|
|
It's about time!  [edit] A hint? Something about SAG, maybe? What is SAG?   Actually, the tv show "The Good Wife" was nominated for the Screen Actors Guild Award. I watch it anyway, but it would have been cool if Bitcoin had been mentioned. |
|
|
|
I've thought a lot about this. Home made bills with a QR code is obviously the best way to do it, the holograms are just over the top and completely unnecessary imo. They're only good as a collectable item and exchange between friends, not for real world trade.
I remember a thread not long ago where some one had submitted some nice paper bill designs, can't be bothered looking for it though. It would be very easy to print your own bitcoin bills, so I think this is the best way to do it.
It would be a good idea to have a way to secure the priv key or a secure container for the paper coins themselves. Prying eyes could get them in advance. It's feasible to make a physical wallet booklet that takes a common sheet of paper and folds/perfs it into it into checks quickly. |
|
|
|
Here's my point. What's to stop a corrupt authority from extorting btc from citizens to fund mining for the banks? Eventually, governments, banks, and big corporations will own most of the mining power anyway, but why make it easy for them by letting them have that power cheap? It's easier to find a mining pool to extort than have to compete on an even playing field with everyone.
tl;dr - On a theoretical level proof of stake seems great, but it is susceptable to the law of unintended consequences.
You are an idiot. Seriously, some programmers may be very book smart but have little common sense about real world issues. Get a life. |
|
|
|
Here is my understanding of how this will work.
1. Print a ballot with a unique (on every ballot) address for each candidate. This means every candidate has many addresses.
2. Randomly hand out ballots to registered voters in each district. This makes it anonymous.
3. Send the minimum bitcoin to each address you vote for. (I'm not going to worry about buying votes, there are many ways to handle that.)
4. Count the number of addresses that receive value for each candidate, not the value amount.
5. The voting can be done from home. Paper ballots can be used to audit the election in each community.
But the party registering the voting addresses (associating addresses to registered voters) can know exactly what each voter voted. Am I missing something? Step two would randomize the ballots so the ballot with the adresses would not be assigned to a particular voter, but to any one of the registered voters in a district. The only way to track who voted for whom is to track the bitcoin adresses to IPs like any other bitcoin transaction. [edit] Paper ballots are very important. Ask any American stuck with voting on a Diebold system. |
|
|
|
I wonder if there is a Sofa Net for vagabonds looking for a place to crash?
couchsurfing.orgNow it only needs a smartphone app and bitcoin payment and I'll pack my knapsack and sleeping bag. |
|
|
|
living on couches
working anywhere I please
holding private keys
That's the life.  I wonder if there is a Sofa Net for vagabonds looking for a place to crash? |
|
|
|
Where do you get the 100 btc? Simple question.
Many possibilities. Here is one: Allow for high difficulty mining by individuals without assets. At the onset, no one has assets so everyone has to mine this way. Over time people accumulate coins. Once this happens, it becomes practically impossible for stakeless miners to compete (e.g. like mining with a CPU today). After the initial period, "mining" entry requires purchase of coins on an exchange. Here's my point. What's to stop a corrupt authority from extorting btc from citizens to fund mining for the banks? Eventually, governments, banks, and big corporations will own most of the mining power anyway, but why make it easy for them by letting them have that power cheap? It's easier to find a mining pool to extort than have to compete on an even playing field with everyone. tl;dr - On a theoretical level proof of stake seems great, but it is susceptable to the law of unintended consequences. |
|
|
|
lol, but to answer op, there were more sellers than buyers..
but WHY there were more sellers Because there are too many people "investing" in bitcoin just because, instead of offering products and services in exchange of bitcoins (which is what will really help bitcoin adoption). What products or services do you suggest that can help bitcoin adoption? |
|
|
|
I have one question about proof of stake. Can stake be acquired by force?
I recommend ignoring questions and comments made by "cbeast". He does not have constructive intentions. Post by: cunicula on July 19, 2011, 12:57:34 PM
I would propose a hybrid sytem which uses proof of work and proof of stake. Transactions would still be verified using mining but people would have to pay for mining rights.
Suppose that a 100 btc security deposit had to be placed for each bitcoin mined per year. Miners could send 100 btc to a time-locked escrow transaction. The escrowed coins could be sent to other addresses as escrowed coins. Anyone holding the private key to this time-locked transaction could mine up to one bitcoin per year. The mined BTC can be spent immediately. Miners could request a withdrawal of the escrowed btc, but the request would be subject to a 6 month time lag. During the 6 month lag, no minng would be allowed and the escrowed coins could not be sent.
Where do you get the 100 btc? Simple question. |
|
|
|
At least they would not be able to print money. Without that privilege, governments won't be nearly as powerful and corrupt as they are now. It's still not such a bad scenario. You can always still trade gold.
I think his story was tongue in cheek. Remember most of the world currency was gold at one time, then redeemable for gold, then backed but not deemable for Gold, and then finally backed by nothing. History would likely repeat itself. Within 50 years it would be back to pure fiat. Poe's Law. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poe%27s_Law |
|
|
|
|
I have one question about proof of stake. Can stake be acquired by force?
|
|
|
|
|
Here is my understanding of how this will work.
1. Print a ballot with a unique (on every ballot) address for each candidate. This means every candidate has many addresses.
2. Randomly hand out ballots to registered voters in each district. This makes it anonymous.
3. Send the minimum bitcoin to each address you vote for. (I'm not going to worry about buying votes, there are many ways to handle that.)
4. Count the number of addresses that receive value for each candidate, not the value amount.
5. The voting can be done from home. Paper ballots can be used to audit the election in each community.
|
|
|
|
This thread title sounds like a boudoir apparel store for men. |
|
|
|
Or to any other bill the customer holds. Ok, so you could put the next public address in a series on the bill given for purchase. |
|
|
|
"proof of stake".
Just those words and I've got it. This might be a reasonable solution to my fears about long term sustainability of Bitcoin. It creates a dozen new problems too, but you've got my gears turning. Thanks. The word proof is rarely used in science. It is used in theory, such as maths. Unfortunately, even Bitcoin uses the term "proof of work" when really it is only an historical block chain, which is really, really hard (but not completely impossible) to fake. |
|
|
|
I don't see the problem with the OP scenario. I have suggested this numerous times. It simply gives tracking capability to law enforcement. It does not remove privacy and doesn't give away control of your balance. Now if you are saying that this WTF (nice) can actually control your spending, that's another story and I doubt anyone would allow any government to do that to the Bitcoin network law or no law.
If the WTF is signatory on a multi-sig transaction then that presumbly means they would exert control over each and every legal transaction. One can easily imagine they would maintain blacklists of addresses at a minimum and block transactions. With more sophistication they could go further, controlling spends based on time, total volume, economic indicators etc. The natural result would would be forming a new blockchain without those controls and which in this context would be treated as illegal, black market transactions by the WTF. At least they would not be able to print money. Without that privilege, governments won't be nearly as powerful and corrupt as they are now. It's still not such a bad scenario. You can always still trade gold. |
|
|
|
|
I don't see the problem with the OP scenario. I have suggested this numerous times. It simply gives tracking capability to law enforcement. It does not remove privacy and doesn't give away control of your balance. Now if you are saying that this WTF (nice) can actually control your spending, that's another story and I doubt anyone would allow any government to do that to the Bitcoin network law or no law.
|
|
|
|
I have. Just make votes proportional to committed long-term ownership of coins instead of energy wastage. This is called "proof of stake". Search for it. I'm not going through details here because it would just attract trolls. I will only respond to high-level theoretical objections.
Help us out here. Can you cite a peer-reviewed journal? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
