The voting issuance would work like this:
-It would be set a minimum amount for example 1 BTC, or lower, so that to avoid spam, and this would be paid to miners in some way.
-The minimum amount can be paid like as a crowdfunding if multiple little guys want to vote, or if a larger entity wants to hold a voting then they can pay it directly
-But other than this anyone can issue the voting
Are you sure you would like this? This would mean that if I had 10000 BTC and you had 10 BTC my opinion would be more valid than yours... You can have 0 BTC and have very accurate and valid opinions about Bitcoin.
Exactly, because if you have no stake in it then you can just as likely to be a saboteur trying to sabotage bitcoin.
You can still have great ideas about anything, but the same way you have no decision in corporate affairs either, you need to be a majority shareholder to have a say in it.
If you are talented then you can still put out your opinions in a white paper, formally and backed with evidence, but it's just that the bitcoin holders have the final say in it, after all it's their coin.
This is true. Just like you can have a lot of coins, support a certain change that you believe might raise the price, actually get it to raise or wait for it to raise and then dump. I agree that having a lot of coins most likely makes you are very interested in Bitcoin and it is unlikely that there are people like this that will just dump when they see a price they deem to be good. However I don't have many coins and I'm deeply interested in seeing Bitcoin succeed, for reasons much bigger than private profit and/or monetary gains and I want to be regarded and listened to if I have an idea that's really worth implementing.
This is unpowering the poor, exactly like the monetary system we already have in place, and I have to disagree with it. I can see what you mean with your voting system proposal, but I still don't think it's reasonable to have this. The risk of having a rogue party trying to disrupt Bitcoin is, I think, nothing compared to having a poor party trying to get a good point across and failing to be heard, in a system where you pay to be heard, or at least where you pay to get changes implemented. Governments would then be able to have a large stake on what concerns Bitcoin...
Its because the 1 user holds more risk alone, he actually put 400$ of his money or labour in bitcoin , and for that risk he should be rewarded with voting power.
If one is not willing to risk this amount for a greater good of Bitcoin, then I think one has to reconsider his stake in Bitcoin... Power comes with responsability. We would be doomed if a person with such power would be irresponsible.
Please don't take my replies as a negative criticism. It's just my opinion
I have a pretty strong opinion on this subject and I hope I got my point across just as nicely as you've been getting yours.
Show Posts
