We could build a democracy out of bitcoin, here's how

[countryfree]

We have a governance problem right now with the block size issue. It's not easy getting a consensus, it might even be impossible, so I wonder if it could be possible to organize a vote. Here's how we could do it.

To participate, you'd need to own BTC, and have several wallets, but I guess all of us do.

I would move, say, 5 BTC, from one of my wallets to another of my wallets, on a given day. The trick would be to embed in that transaction some code (which would have to be agreed upon beforehand), which would mean "I support XT" or "I support BIP 100". The transaction would be in the blockchain, and at the end of the day, some bot would calculate how many BTC have been moved with "I support XT" or "I support BIP 100".

I understand this system would give more voting rights to those who own the most BTC, but that doesn't worry me because I believe the more BTC you own, the best choice you will make to protect your investment. But we would need a system to prevent voters voting several times. I suggest that to have their votes validated, there should be no other transactions from the receiving wallet on voting day.

Now, since I'm not much of a techie, is that possible? And is it a good idea?

[Zz]

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.

[Za1n]

We have a governance problem right now with the block size issue. It's not easy getting a consensus, it might even be impossible, so I wonder if it could be possible to organize a vote. Here's how we could do it.

To participate, you'd need to own BTC, and have several wallets, but I guess all of us do.

I would move, say, 5 BTC, from one of my wallets to another of my wallets, on a given day. The trick would be to embed in that transaction some code (which would have to be agreed upon beforehand), which would mean "I support XT" or "I support BIP 100". The transaction would be in the blockchain, and at the end of the day, some bot would calculate how many BTC have been moved with "I support XT" or "I support BIP 100".

I understand this system would give more voting rights to those who own the most BTC, but that doesn't worry me because I believe the more BTC you own, the best choice you will make to protect your investment. But we would need a system to prevent voters voting several times. I suggest that to have their votes validated, there should be no other transactions from the receiving wallet on voting day.

Now, since I'm not much of a techie, is that possible? And is it a good idea?

You should look up the definition of Oligarchy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy which is a far cry from Democracy.

I bolded your statement above that is almost the definition of an Oligarchy, so not sure where your idea of Democracy fit into this theory.

[cakir]

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.

+1. We don't need democracy. We need "meritocracy". The people who knows what are they doing should decide.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy

[maokoto]

Agree with the meritocracy. Regular people proposing solutions are not good, as they do not know about all the risks and problems it takes to implement them

[poeEDgar]

Ah, yes, put all your trust in the "experts"..... what could go wrong?

[countryfree]

Meritocracy, oligarchy, I'm very familiar with those terms.

My proposal would be quite meritocratic, assuming those who own the most BTC have more merit. It would also be much more democratic than the present situation, since actually there are very, very few people deciding about the block size issue we're facing: miners. Nobody else but miners. Miners choose to adopt XT or not. My proposal would enlarge the number of voters to anyone owning BTC.

[Za1n]

Meritocracy, oligarchy, I'm very familiar with those terms.

My proposal would be quite meritocratic, assuming those who own the most BTC have more merit. It would also be much more democratic than the present situation, since actually there are very, very few people deciding about the block size issue we're facing: miners. Nobody else but miners. Miners choose to adopt XT or not. My proposal would enlarge the number of voters to anyone owning BTC.

You might as well stick with the financial system we already have then and not even worry about BTC, as the current system is run by the people who control the most $$. If your ideal system is already in existence, why are you looking elsewhere? After all, you originally said:

I believe the more BTC you own, the best choice you will make to protect your investment.

, just substitute $$ for BTC and you already have the perfect system according to your vision.

[countryfree]

Meritocracy, oligarchy, I'm very familiar with those terms.

My proposal would be quite meritocratic, assuming those who own the most BTC have more merit. It would also be much more democratic than the present situation, since actually there are very, very few people deciding about the block size issue we're facing: miners. Nobody else but miners. Miners choose to adopt XT or not. My proposal would enlarge the number of voters to anyone owning BTC.

You might as well stick with the financial system we already have then and not even worry about BTC, as the current system is run by the people who control the most $$. If your ideal system is already in existence, why are you looking elsewhere? After all, you originally said:

I believe the more BTC you own, the best choice you will make to protect your investment.

, just substitute $$ for BTC and you already have the perfect system according to your vision.

I've NOT said this was the perfect system. Besides, BTC is actually hardly better. My proposal would increase the number of people who have a say in BTC's future.

Now, I hope someone could reply about the technical feasibility of my idea.

[Blawpaw]

I partially agree with you...
I believe that everyone should have the same right to vote and his vote count the same as others... that would be truly democratic.
The option you are presenting is not democratic. It looks more like an Oligarky or should I say the Majority's dictatorship...??

[Carlton Banks]

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.

+1. We don't need democracy. We need "meritocracy". The people who knows what are they doing should decide.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy

+2

and we've already got one. The commits to the Bitcoin github repo are judged on their merit. By just a couple of people, who just so happen to have exercised good judgment so far.

Maybe if the quorum was made higher, then we'd get better decision making. Don't know about that, the sheeps and professors analogy from cakir is very apt.

[kelsey]

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.

+1. We don't need democracy. We need "meritocracy". The people who knows what are they doing should decide.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy

+2

and we've already got one. The commits to the Bitcoin github repo are judged on their merit. By just a couple of people, who just so happen to have exercised good judgment so far.

aka the lunatics running the asylum 

[Carlton Banks]

aka the lunatics running the asylum  

Which is your asylum of preference, kelsey? Your not another one of the Room 101 people are you?  

[S4VV4S]

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.

+1. We don't need democracy. We need "meritocracy". The people who knows what are they doing should decide.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy

OK, and who decides who those people are?
And how is it any different than what we have now with the blocksize debate?
It's either Core or XT, right?

[countryfree]

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.

[kelsey]

aka the lunatics running the asylum  

Which is your asylum of preference, kelsey? Your not another one of the Room 101 people are you?  

i'm more a bitcoin is a solution looking for a problem type person 

[ajas]

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.

[defaced]

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.

[kelsey]

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.

2 coders want to take control, to help business buddies from like another 6 who also want to help business buddies from the miners who want profits when tis all controlled by market forces.

so winning the battle may just lose them the war

[countryfree]

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.