Lol!  What a pile of garbage.  Apparently the only valid use-case is a set of different computers which use it to somehow open and unlock a door to an apartment. 

You couldn't make this shit up!! 

Close.  People /claiming to be/ the Australian govt just got it for free by seizing. 

Great site, thank you!!  

OMG!  My privkey is between 1 and FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFEBAAEDCE6AF48A03BBFD25E8CD0364140 !  

How did you know?  


If you could please add the option to sort the list by bitcoin address this would be much appreciated      

Can I use bitcoin to throw money away because I prefer soundbytes and fads to thinking clearly and doing business in a rational way?  Yes I absolutely can. 

Nonsense.  Block confirmation will average 10 minutes no matter what miners do; it's called difficulty adjust.  Note that fiat currencies have NO public verifiable transactions which is equivalent to infinity for the confirmation time.  0conf still instant as are most off-chain solutions.   

Hey look you know what every user trades their valuables for, perhaps I can contract you to figure out what my girlfriend is spending the coin I gave her on. 

This is the most absurd argument ever.  People can aquire mining power, but they can't aquire coin?  Stake is easier to get ahold of than hashpower.  Just go over to the market and pick it up with your newly issued M1 tokens. 

Well why would Charlie swap his un-voted coin for my voted coin then?   


Your assumption was that Charlie didn't care about the vote in question.  In this case Charlie wants to take the island so that isn't the case. 

To get further into it we need more specifics.  How about a specific example of a coin-vote you have in mind? 

No, it's not possible the know that.  It's not possible to know how many printing presses there are, or how many bills come from even a single one of them.  It's not possible to know how many people are sitting with palates of benjies in their garage.  Fiat is not public currency, these numbers are in no way verifiable. 

Banks and governments are made of people, and people are free to use public currencies.  There is no "threat" about it. 

The only things that come to mind for me as possible measures of the world's wealth are:

1) Biodiversity  (number of unique species)

2) Biomass (mass of living things, arable land)

If you want to talk about the world's exchange commodities, it's easy to say how many BTC or LTC the world has. 

Notice the total absurdity of this statement by those some sources.  For one there is no mention of M0 vs. M1 vs. higher derivatives.  For two there is no way any of these levels of money supply could be verified, as the unit is "$".  For three, the unit of "$" is unbounded, issuers gonna issue, nobody can stop them.  For four, the unit "$" is without physical definition - there is no way to verify one has a "$" other than to pass it off to another idiot.  It's absurd to even think of it as a unit of wealth, let alone to assign a finite number to it or to claim you know some total number of "wealth of Earth".    

Aha!  Thanks for sticking with me and my stubbornness RealBitcoin, I see what you are talking about now.

Indeed, there is the interesting question here of what happens to non-voting coin (Charlie, in your example) and how it can be leveraged by voters.    

Yes, in the coin-vote as I have outlined it Eve could perhaps (for a small fee always) exchange her coin for "fresh" coin, that is - coin which has not voted, thusly increasing her voting power.  

If you set up your vote so that transfers invalidate votes, one can also pay a fee to leverage non-voting coin.  Charlie can simply be paid a small fee (free money for Charlie as he doesn't care about the vote) to sign the voting statement.  If Charlie is willing to make the exchange (non-vote for voted coin), it's likely he will be willing to sign a statement for a small fee.    

I don't see a huge difference between these two.. and indeed the question of how to handle non-voting coin and it's accessibility to voters (buying voting power) is outstanding and deserves further discussion.  Thanks for making it clear here.  

I see a couple potential solutions.  One is that one could mark certain coin as "voting coin".  This is the colored coin solution, that many have used already.  Votes can only be made with these coins and their children and no others.  No more problem from "non-voting coin".  

It seems that requiring coin to not be transfered as you suggest mitigates the issue somewhat, depending on the vote itself and interest.  For example it also stops somebody buying votes with coin that has already voted, though this isn't really much of a difference.  

To come to further conclusions here it seems we need to consider what kind of votes this system is designed for.  At first I thought it would be ideal for coin related issues such as BIPs or forks.  Then I realized that these things are mostly decided economically and the parties involved might not want their power and desire to be public.  For something like voting for a company director, the colored coin solution seems appropriate.  For something like public policy or election of public official, I'm not sure how appropriate it is.  What do you think?  

Cheers --    
  
  

Well you're still voting with coin, so more power to you.    

The way we implemented coin-vote.com, we are 100% sure no cheating happens - and users can spend their coin whenever they like, meanwhile there is no requirement to make an official "ending" of a vote, people could continue to send in votes as long as they want and the tally is ALWAYS accurate and verifiable.  Tallies will never decrease.

If you see some vulnerability is the system as i have described it, please do tell.  

We check that the UTXO or set of UTXOs are confirmed on the blockchain when you submit the vote and sum them to the weight of your vote, we check the vote is a corresponding proper signature of the english voting statement, then we check that each UTXO is not an output of a previously used UTXO, then we increment the tally.  Not really that complex.  

Hmm, reports from choppers  are that they can't figure out how to use your pool.

Can you give us further instructions? 

Yeah, I think we are on the same page.  I would refer to it as 1 satoshi 1 vote, rather than one bitcoin one vote, but that's a minor quibble.  Just as bitcoin is uncounterfeitable and verifiable, votes are uncounterfeitable and verifiable.  You can't double spend, you can't double vote.  Yes, you're right that there is no need to tie any other forms of identity to this.      

One thing people often don't realize about bitcoin is that the ledger is not a collection of balances held at addresses.  It is a collection of unspent outputs (UTXOs).  In other words, you might say "I have 50k satoshi at address 1aaabc..".  However on the chain what we see is some number of unspent outputs all credited to 1aaabc which total 50k sat.  When spending the 50k sat you need to pick from which unspent outputs they come from (this is handled automatically or manually).

The reason that a proper coin-vote system needs to recognize this fact is that otherwise an attacker could vote, after which sending dust to other addresses with large holdings, thus making it look like future votes from those other large addresses are tainted and should be rejected as potential double-votes.  While you can thusly "taint" an address, it is impossible to thusly taint a UTXO.  

A proper coin-vote thus enables a voter to vote with all the UTXO associated with an address, or with specific UTXOs, to avoid such an attack.  

There is no need to forbid outgoing TX from an address, though if you were lazy and wanted to run a vote that way - yes it would also work to prevent the taint-attack (apart from the disincentive to voters who should rightly be allowed to spend their coin).  It would also make it kind of difficult to keep a running tally of the vote, seeing as you need to often check whether any coin has left an address used for voting (and then invalidate the vote).  This will wind up being a lot more database queries than proper checking of votes when they are submitted.  








 

Yes. Specifically, voting is done not with an address but with an unspent output (but you can also choose to vote with every unspent output associated with an address).  When a new voting signature is submitted, we must go through every current vote and check the output tree from each to make sure the new vote is not on that output tree.  Typically the output tree is of length zero.  If somebody votes and then immediate sends this coin to a mixer, it would be longer.  However the query is still fast and unbreakable.     


Why would we do that?  Each vote is tested when it arrives, and before being added to the current running tally displayed.  It's important that everything is transparent and can be checked by anyone by looking at the record.  

Thanks for your replies and interest in verifiably fair votes using bitcoin!    

The dollar will never collapse.  A single dollar will always buy several ounces of silver, it will always buy 10 bitcoins, it will always buy a good suit of clothes just like it used to. 

 

Not at all.  The time is of order N*(db query time) where N is the number of votes cast so far.  For every incoming vote, you simply check the address for taint from every existing vote.  This is not an "analysis" it is a straightforward database query and is nearly instant. 

For an example of a taint query on the blockchain see https://blockchain.info/taint/1dice6GV5Rz2iaifPvX7RMjfhaNPC8SXH

This is spelled out in my paper.  Did you read it? 

Our solution allows the user to spend the coin immediately, i.e. voting carries NO COST apart from the work of signing the statement and submitting it.  Don't you think that is better? 

Hmm, i guess I didn't make my point clear, sorry.  My point was that your previously linked article (why there are no such thing as cryptocurrenciies)  assumed that hashpower is fungible across altcoin networks when in fact it isn't.  I only listed the coins as examples of coins secured with different hash functions, which are not mineable with SHA256 hardware. 

Nice collection of false statements.  Care to estimate for us the number of people currently holding  人民币 in their pockets?  I just bought a few thousands of those fiat notes yesterday.  There is never "one currency on top of all".  People trade using whatever they like and negotiate the terms of their trade, as they always will.