I guess this isn't going anywhere, though. I was looking for a way to solve the blocksize issue, but my idea hasn't had enough support so far. When I look at all the posts on this topic, there is clearly more people against the idea than there are supporters. Well, it was worth trying.
I appreciate the effort. Thanks! The idea is in the air. Someone may pick it up someday if it ever becomes useful to find out what large BTC holders really want. I'm not expecting that in the near future, but BTC shall have a long life. |
|
|
|
|
You can't compare a political party with BTC. A political party needs constant people's involvement, whereas BTC has a life of its own, with all the miners mining. There might also have some bots doing automatic trades.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not expecting this to change anything since it will be only one transaction, with the highest bidder a very different guy from the average bitcoiner. The scary thing would be that those BTC would be sold one at a time, but this isn't how they will do it.
|
|
|
|
I kinda like your idea of 2 outputs with a "blank" one. A possible issue could be that it would not be doable with all clients. Much organization would be needed...
Yes, I was just trying to design a transaction that would be considered "standard" by the reference client. More exotic designs (such as having multiple OP_RETURN outputs) would be difficult to propogate. If you want it to be so that a vote can be cast easily by most/all clients then you have more of a challenge. Without some coin control, the voter would have no easy way to tie his wallets balance to a particular vote. This will basically be by design; good wallets protect the user's financial privacy by default. With coin control, a user might replace the OP_RETURN output with a regular transaction, burning a small number of satoshi to a special voting address. The number of satoshi burnt would correspond to the choice of the voter. Expect to meet resistance with such a proposal though as these voting outputs would not be "provably unspendable", tantamount to an attack on pruning nodes. I've thought of coin control. That was one of the reason behind the choice of a speedy vote. No more than 24 hours, with voters making the pledge not to make any other transaction during the allowed voting period. I guess this isn't going anywhere, though. I was looking for a way to solve the blocksize issue, but my idea hasn't had enough support so far. When I look at all the posts on this topic, there is clearly more people against the idea than there are supporters. Well, it was worth trying. |
|
|
|
I've just discovered that someone has already done what I've been thinking about. http://coin-vote.com/I don't like this way they do things, though. From their FAQ: How do I vote?
You first select your choice on a question, then press "Submit". You will be given a "Message to be signed", along with two empty fields. Go to your bitcoin wallet, choose an address that holds funds and use your wallet or bitcoin key to sign the message. You have to put the address (or TXID) which you used to make the signature in the first field on the coin-vote website, and the signature produced by your wallet in the second. Then, click submit. Your vote will be verified and counted. I'm not comfortable doing this. |
|
|
|
My first thought would be for a voting transaction to be a transaction with one input (say 5 BTC as above) and two outputs: - 5 BTC: OP_DUP OP_HASH160 <pubKeyHash> OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG
- 0 BTC: OP_RETURN PUSHDATA(<ASCII vote message>)
Organising this to occur on a single day would be difficult. Perhaps people could vote months in advance of a set block number. Once this set block is generated and sufficently well buried, the voting transactions still unspent at that point could be summed. It's an interesting idea but there may be some problems with it. Perhaps these can be fixed. For one, I could imagine a powerful interest buying many bitcoins, voting, and immediately selling the bitcoins again. It's tenuous to suggest that large bitcoin holders will make good decisions or even have Bitcoin's interest at heart. You could counter this by making the voting transactions unspendable for a number of years (protocol change I think) but this may overly discourage voting. Another thing to bear in mind is that these votes will be public when they are cast. You might want to think about tactical voting and/or encryption. PS: I'd avoid the term "democracy" in future proposals because you'll generate noise (as witnessed in this thread) and because Bitcoin itself doesn't have a concept of person so a democratic, protocol-level mechanism is impossible. "stake voting" is perhaps more accurate. "Stake voting", you're probably right on that. It would be pretty much like a big firm, where the biggest shareholders have the last word. I hadn't thought about people buying then selling BTC to gain voting rights, but I don't see it as a big issue since it should be really expensive with prices going up if many people buy at the same time, then going down if everybody sells again at the same time. Voting process shall be as quick as possible, but how can this be an issue when you'll vote at home? I kinda like your idea of 2 outputs with a "blank" one. A possible issue could be that it would not be doable with all clients. Much organization would be needed... |
|
|
|
|
You know what, if look for the price of a bottle of milk in the groceries stores around your place, you'll come up with different prices, too. Same with bread, beef, gasoline, cars, guns, drugs, prostitutes and about everything else.
|
|
|
|
Even if a result was reached from the voting let's say in favor of increasing the blocksize, how sure are we that the opposer would accept the result and then move on with life? This issue will still be left hanging and there are bound to be people not wanting to accept the result and will give all sorts of reason to cry foul.
This hardly matters, just look at politics. Some Americans are not seeing Obama as their president because is a black muslim, but he's in the White House, and this is what matters to most onlookers. Right now, many BTC investors are worried because they don't know where BTC's heading. If there was a majority towards one precise direction, that would make them confident again. Some miners may not be happy about the outcome, but nobody will care about them since they are a minority. |
|
|
|
|
I totally support anything which could help reduce spam transactions. If I were a miner, I would reject any transaction below 0.001 BTC, I mean below a quarter. Hey, that's nothing!
|
|
|
|
We don't want democracy. In democracies 10 sheeps vote is better than 9 professors. The right one is not always the most voted. I'm strongly against this proposition.
Indeed bitcoin should be run as a corporation. It should be % ownership based voting, just like in a corporation. The fact that 100000 newbies come in, each with 10 satoshis gained from faucet payments, just to distort the voting mechanism is a bad idea. Democracy is flawed, both in real life, as in here, we need a capitalist solution here, so it should be a % ownership based vote! In the very early days of democracy, say in the 17th century, it was widely accepted that only the rich, those who paid tax, were allowed to participate in any kind of vote. Voting rights were progressively extended to every man, then every woman. |
|
|
|
A typically reaction is to wait and combine several small transactions into a large one and send it with a higher fee (just like ATM cash withdraw in foreign country, you always do the maximum withdraw to reduce the impact of the fee since fee is fixed regardless of withdraw amount)
That depends on the bank. Usually, there are 2 fees. One from the bank which issued the credit card, and another from the foreign which provide the cash. One can be fixed, the other can be %, there are many cases... Regarding the stress tests, I welcome them. They show what it will be like next year, with more people using BTC. Banks also do stress tests! Stress tests don't have to be disruptive. That's why we have testnet.  This isn't a 'stress test', it's a premeditated attack on the network.Good. I want more attacks. Especially from friendly BTC supporters, because we have to get ready in case of some real bad guys (Islamic State, Russia...) organizing a real attack to destroy western economies. |
|
|
|
|
You shall not steal a police car! What a dummy! In some places, they have trackers (the satellite thing) so the police chief knows at all times where the forces are. They probably do in Alaska.
|
|
|
|
|
Have you looked at the pictures?
They show many more men than women, and not that many children. Some men look angry already. Germany's already failing to assimilate all its Turks, it's not going to get any better with those 800,000 extra muslims. I used to like Germany. It was a great country, and it still is. Don't know for how long, though.
|
|
|
|
|
Ever heard the story of Romus and Remulus?
That was the same story, except it was with a wolf, some 2700 years ago, in Italy. Both boys proved later to have a successful and happy life.
I wish that Chilean boy the same fate.
|
|
|
|
|
You shall add lack of people willing to take risks, and go illegal. I've asked a few of my clients to pay me with BTC, and they declined the proposition. Why? Because, that would not be legal. They are corporations and they need to keep their accounting books clean, in one single currency.
|
|
|
|
We do not have a democracy and we certainly will never have it.
Satoshi Nakamoto designed the system in a way that the decisions are
made by the miners. He certainly thought this would enforce some kind
of democracy: Everybody could run a miner on his PC and setting up
some kind of dedicated high performance computer systems just for this
purpose should not pay out.
He was not aware of ASICs and the concentration of mining power in the
hands of a few people.
However, even if miners finally can decide what to do, there are
strong forcing for a consensus and for a conservative behaviour:
- miners who create a fork will sit alone on their chain.
- miners have to respect the technical constraints (bandwidth etc)
otherwise they are lost.
- Miners have to serve the community, otherwise the price of bitcoin
will fall and they will not make any profit (in fiat).
- Large miners depend on profits in fiat: they have expenses in
electricity, hardware cost, infrastructure, etc.
- Small miners can ignore these costs, so there is still some chance
for democracy. Be aware of your power!
The code developers do not have any power. Everybody can set up a fork
(as XT). But in order to succeed he has to achieve consensus.
To conclude: I like bitcoin very much. It is anarchy with a very
strong forcing for consensus. It now has survived for approximately 5
years. It is really interesting to see how this system will evolve
further under real world conditions. Bitcoin is in beta status and a big
experiment. I am looking forward into the future.
yup exactly,miners vote with their hashing power. Bitcoiners could vote with their funds too its just not directly built into the software. But there is no reason coinage voting couldnt exist. Yes, consensus. There's nothing wrong with that except that the actual quantity of people needed to get it is probably too small. We would have the same problem with coinage voting, but it would be better as there are always more and more people owning BTC, in total opposition to miners, who are fewer and fewer. |
|
|
|
A typically reaction is to wait and combine several small transactions into a large one and send it with a higher fee (just like ATM cash withdraw in foreign country, you always do the maximum withdraw to reduce the impact of the fee since fee is fixed regardless of withdraw amount)
That depends on the bank. Usually, there are 2 fees. One from the bank which issued the credit card, and another from the foreign which provide the cash. One can be fixed, the other can be %, there are many cases... Regarding the stress tests, I welcome them. They show what it will be like next year, with more people using BTC. Banks also do stress tests! |
|
|
|
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.
Then be prepared to a huge social unrest that will kill the country for sure. You definitely can't take that away. And every party trying that will be dead instantly. And yes... Ehtiopians are the big example right? I guess you don't care about all the people that die there because of hunger and missing medicine. I doubt you really want that for your country. Since I don't have a country (I had one but I left it), I want this for the whole world, and people may want it or not, it's coming. Countries which provide the most generous welfare packages are also the countries with the biggest debts. |
|
|
|
|
The "Central trusted authority", this is what the BTC Foundation was supposed to be. Most people don't want it anymore so we have to find how that new commanding group will be any different.
A good start to find a consensus would be to set a modest goal. Implementing changes one by one. Small steps by small steps.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm very disappointed nobody seems to see that what I'm proposing would make BTC more democratic than it is. Oligarchy, or meritocracy, is pretty much what we're having now and nobody wants this to change. OK, I got it.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
