Cryptocracy emerging in bitcoin friendly countries

[Bitcoinpro]

much more stable n user friendly than a democracy

[~Bitcoin~]

much more stable n user friendly than a democracy

I have never heard cryptocracy like think before haha 
But yes anyone can own and have their crypto coin so it can be similar to democracy, everybody have right to have coin.

[NorrisK]

Voting through the blockchain? Provably fair elections? I do see some uses for a cryptocracy.

Would be difficult to make sure everybody only gets one vote though.

[Blind Legs Parker]

Is this about plutocracy?

Because if it's only about voting through the blockchain than it's only a democracy, with no real difference. It's not gonna be any fairer. And plutocracy is especially unfair for that matter (but it's kind of already the world we're living in: a world where banks and petrol corporations have all the power, behind the curtain).

[robelneo]

i think this a new philosophy and a new word but never encounter this one before hopefully some genius will pick this up and create a set of philosophy on this new term it could become the new word order we never know many things has come out since the inception of bitcoin

[chennan]

Well for one thing, I've been thinking about what the hell is going to happen amongst nations and every citizen they have once/if a nation accepts crypto currencies as its own "national" currency. There will be such a small percentage that will own Bitcoin in comparison to everyone else in the nation, with pretty much everyone starting out at 0.

So how would governments/should governments intervene and have a huge mandatory tax on people that do have cryptocurrencies?... And because of the highly unlikely scenario ever taking place, I think you guys will start to see my point.

If one huge first world nation like GB, USA, France, etc. accepts and establishes Bitcoin as a national currency, then how would the government fix the wealth distribution? If those big countries accept Bitcoin, then the price will sky rocket to oblivion..

[7788bitcoin]

For those (like me) who have no idea what "Cryptocracy" is:

"The shadow government (cryptocracy, secret government, or invisible government) is a family of conspiracy theories based on the notion that real and actual political power resides not with publicly elected representatives, but with private individuals who are exercising power behind the scenes, beyond the scrutiny of democratic institutions. According to this belief, the official elected government is in reality subservient to the shadow government who are the true executive power."

[franky1]

democracy:
where there is a representative for a certain demograph.
EG
those wanting less limits on their life go for republican
those wanting total freedom go for libertarian
those wanting more oversight go for democratic

but democracy is not actually fair to the individual, elections can be rigged.
even without mis-counting votes, just the location of the polling station can change which candidate is seen as being the majority of the demograph based purely on the short travel distance certain people need to make to vote, EG put all polling stations in a city would get different mindsets compared to putting polling stations on farming country

the other bad thing about democracy is that it is hierarchical.

where local representatives then have a representative regionally, who then have a representative nationally.
    _____C_____
   /        /    \       \
  A       B     C       C
 /|\     /|\    /|\     /|\
AAA  BAB  ACC  ACC

which although there are 6xA 4xC and 2xB... the nation is represented by C.. not A which makes 66% of the population(6A 2B) feel not represented and like a dictatorship in favour of C

democracy is flawed and can be manipulated
where as direct voting, from peoples homes with no selected locations, where all votes are transparent would look like this
  ____ A ____
 / / / / /|\\ \ \ \\
AAABABACCCCA

but that then makes half the population (4C 2B) not represented. and feel like a dictatorship in the favour of A

so how about not having a democratic nature at all, thus no single leader. but multiple leaders
   __A_     B     _C_
  / / /|\\    /\    / / \ \
 AAAAAA  BB  CCCC

bitcoin example:
why have 3 candidates releasing a litehouse proposal, all wanting to speak at the next conference. where there is only 1 ultimate winner
lets say
A=Andreas antanopoulos
B=Bruce Fenton
C=Charles Hoskinson

in a democratic election Charles hoskinson would turn up with 33% of the funds, the narative of the conference is one sided and only last, lets say an hour.

yet in a direct election where there is no ultimate winner.. all 3 would turn up
Andreas will have 50% of the funds, so he can have a comfortable 4 star hotel and free to speak for hour and a half
Bruce will have 17% of the funds, sleeping in a motel and having 30 minutes time to speak
Charles hoskinson would have 33% of funds, allowing for a 3star hotel and atleast an hour of talk time

allowing for a more fair narrative at a conference and it lasting 3 hours

summary:
and so .. 'ocracy whether based on the demograph of the people or representatives of cryptocurrency lovers, is bad as there is only 1 ultimate leader.
so lets stay distributed (decentralised) which propaganda negatively implies it is bad, but is called communism. when infact it works well for bitcoin

so coinmunism is what bitcoin should be about.. not cryptocracy

[Kprawn]

It should have said, Cryptocrazy .... There are still a lot of work to be done to have a democracy brought on with the help of Crypto currencies. You would need to place all

identities onto the Blockchain and have them vote without being forced or intimidated. Most countries do not have the communication technology and infrastructure to make

this happen. We will slowly move into that field with Crypto currencies, but it would need to be politically motivated by the people. 

[n2004al]

much more stable n user friendly than a democracy

Game of words to which I cannot find the meaning. Maybe is my problem but what has to do the crypto with the democracy my brain cannot reach to catch. So if the OP explain better its idea may be something interesting to be commented. But first of all to understand. I can imagine some things (that can seems even without any kind of connection with the ten words written by OP in its main post) but what can be its value. The OP may talk about moon and me about Sun. So cannot make the risk to seems not intelligent.

[Patatas]

I hope it takes over someday because Democracy=Corruption/Murders/Poverty/Centralized .I totally support the emergence of cryptocracy,maybe it will take ages to take over depending on the number of crypto supporters of the Nation.

[franky1]

I hope it takes over someday because Democracy=Corruption/Murders/Poverty/Centralized .I totally support the emergence of cryptocracy,maybe it will take ages to take over depending on the number of crypto supporters of the Nation.

cryptocracy is still democracy.. but instead of a demograph of peoples mindsets that are ultimatly centralised by representative hierarchies its the crypto community that is ultimately centralized by representative hierarchies

if you want complete decentralization, then the term is coinmunism

[oblomov]

We already live in a "cryptocracy" in the US and Europe at least.

But, it's not the type of cryptocracy you are proposing.  We see the current titular rulers and hear their words, but we do not see who and what moves them.

When the US lost the Cold War, what remained of free enterprise was supplanted by state capitalism.

It's difficult to test this hypothesis, but we can observe that those who hold power do not fear the people.  They pursue their own agenda that only tangentially reflects the will of the people.  The parties in power and their ostensible opposition agree broadly on policy.  What would be true opposition has been marginalized into "far right" and "extreme left" factions.

[franky1]

We already live in a "cryptocracy" in the US and Europe at least.

But, it's not the type of cryptocracy you are proposing.  We see the current titular rulers and hear their words, but we do not see who and what moves them.

When the US lost the Cold War, what remained of free enterprise was supplanted by state capitalism.

It's difficult to test this hypothesis, but we can observe that those who hold power do not fear the people.  They pursue their own agenda that only tangentially reflects the will of the people.  The parties in power and their ostensible opposition agree broadly on policy.  What would be true opposition has been marginalized into "far right" and "extreme left" factions.

what if i told you that all leader agenda's can be selfish.. but advertised as the will of the people just by saying the words "its the will of the people to want...."

EG
block size debate
"its the will of the people to want less bloat, not more"
"its the will of the people to want more capacity not less"

both of which people believe to be true, but both are contradictory, and so the leader(chief core dev) can choose whatever selfish agenda they want because... "its the will of the people" so whatever path they take must be accepted