Bitcoin Forum
June 28, 2024, 07:12:12 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 27.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Consensus-based society with provable trust-free voting  (Read 11117 times)
interlagos (OP)
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 496
Merit: 500


View Profile
November 15, 2012, 09:43:05 PM
Last edit: December 23, 2014, 01:33:10 PM by interlagos
 #1

Instead of randomly electing people and giving away our power to them,
how about we keep the power to ourselves and solve the problems in a consensus-based manner.

For that we need a total transparency for (a) money transfers and (b) provable trust-free voting.
Bitcoin solves the (a) part of the problem, so we only need to create a solution for (b)

I've already proposed this in Bitcoin Foundation thread a couple of times so I will repeat it here.
It is possible for an organization with membership paid in Bitcoin to create a system with provable trust-free voting.

In this system all membership fees are collected into a single public Bitcoin address and votes are the messages signed with the private keys of the addresses that sent a full membership fee to that address.
The whole repository of these messages along with their Bitcoin addresses is then made public.
This will allow every individual member to check that his/her vote is correct and also verify that other votes come from legit members (those who paid the fee) and they in turn can verify that their vote is correct.

The members of that organization/society can then vote for variety of different things: decide where money need to be spent and how, appoint people to lead different projects to achieve certain goals and so on.
All the money flow will be transparent because the fee collection address is public.
It probably needs to be protected with multisig so that no single person can run away with the funds, but that is one of the technical details that can be worked out along the way.
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
November 15, 2012, 09:44:17 PM
 #2

Can I opt out?

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
interlagos (OP)
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 496
Merit: 500


View Profile
November 15, 2012, 09:48:39 PM
 #3

Can I opt out?

Sure!
You won't be able to vote, but if you don't want to/don't care it's totally ok.

EDIT:
This might give an answer to the questions like "who will build the roads?" and
"who will look after the old and sick?" Smiley
Also it doesn't need to get big or centralized, it can start as your local neighborhood of 10 families and stay that way.
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
November 15, 2012, 10:04:43 PM
 #4

Can I opt out?

Sure!
You won't be able to vote, but if you don't want to/don't care it's totally ok.

As long as those who do vote keep their decisions to themselves, I'm fine with it.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
interlagos (OP)
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 496
Merit: 500


View Profile
November 15, 2012, 10:19:00 PM
 #5

Can I opt out?

Sure!
You won't be able to vote, but if you don't want to/don't care it's totally ok.

As long as those who do vote keep their decisions to themselves, I'm fine with it.

Yes, the votes can still be as anonymous as Bitcoin addresses, so it will be hard to pressure people.
Also it is better to start with small local communities/neighborhoods where people know each other and the total number of members is limited and known, so that system would be hard to hijack from outside.

It's actually perfectly inline with AnCap. I highly doubt that without the government society will consist of lonely strangers. There will still be families, there will still be neighborhoods and they would want to resolve conflicts in a civilized manner. The idea in OP could provide one of the possible solutions.
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
November 15, 2012, 10:31:09 PM
 #6

Can I opt out?

Sure!
You won't be able to vote, but if you don't want to/don't care it's totally ok.

As long as those who do vote keep their decisions to themselves, I'm fine with it.

Yes, the votes can still be as anonymous as Bitcoin addresses, so it will be hard to pressure people.

That's not what I meant, but the rest of your reply implies, though falls short of outright saying, that what I did mean - that those who voted would not attempt to foist the results of the vote upon those who want no part in their system - is true as well.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
interlagos (OP)
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 496
Merit: 500


View Profile
November 15, 2012, 10:50:42 PM
 #7

As long as those who do vote keep their decisions to themselves, I'm fine with it.

Yes, the votes can still be as anonymous as Bitcoin addresses, so it will be hard to pressure people.

That's not what I meant, but the rest of your reply implies, though falls short of outright saying, that what I did mean - that those who voted would not attempt to foist the results of the vote upon those who want no part in their system - is true as well.

Yes, the system is completely voluntary.
Two neighborhoods may vote within themselves to join forces, for example, and those who were opposed to this decision are free to leave and create their own neighborhood or stay alone.

Also, as the neighborhoods grow to the point where they can successfully defend their territory this may give rise to a notion of land ownership. Simply if you occupy the land and can defend it - it's yours.
Over time this system should stabilize and provide some consensus of who owns what and there finally be peace on Earth! Smiley
Lethn
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1540
Merit: 1000



View Profile WWW
November 16, 2012, 08:15:38 AM
 #8

So long as politicians are able to make choices independent of the people who voted for them voting will never be fair.
lebing
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1288
Merit: 1000

Enabling the maximal migration


View Profile
November 16, 2012, 09:04:09 AM
 #9

Consensus is difficult enough to get working within the context of people who live together in cohousing/ intentional community. Within the scope of a society, its lunacy. Maybe you are searching for another term?

Bro, do you even blockchain?
-E Voorhees
FreeMoney
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246
Merit: 1015


Strength in numbers


View Profile WWW
November 16, 2012, 09:53:48 AM
 #10

Can I opt out?

Sure!
You won't be able to vote, but if you don't want to/don't care it's totally ok.

EDIT:
This might give an answer to the questions like "who will build the roads?" and
"who will look after the old and sick?" Smiley
Also it doesn't need to get big or centralized, it can start as your local neighborhood of 10 families and stay that way.

Unless your group is going to be 6 people forcing 4 people to do and not do stuff you might as well just skip voting and go with actual consensus. Don't do stuff to people without their permission. You don't even need 10 people you can start by yourself. Don't hurt people and don't make excuses (uniform, election, tradition, etc) for people who do hurt others (including yourself).

Play Bitcoin Poker at sealswithclubs.eu. We're active and open to everyone.
Charlie Prime
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 406
Merit: 250



View Profile
November 16, 2012, 02:06:16 PM
 #11

Two neighborhoods may vote within themselves to join forces, for example, and those who were opposed to this decision are free to leave and create their own neighborhood or stay alone.

Gang warfare.  Brilliant.

Ambit    ██
██  ██
██  ██
██  ██
██  ██
██  ██
██  ██
██  ██
██  ██
██  ██
██  █████
██
████████████
Become part of the mining family
✔ SECURED  │ WHITEPAPER │  ★ 171% ROI
██   
██  ██
██  ██
██  ██
██  ██
██  ██
██  ██
██  ██
██  ██
██  ██
█████  ██
██
████████████
kokojie
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1806
Merit: 1003



View Profile
November 16, 2012, 02:44:40 PM
 #12

The regular people lacks the expertise and information to make an informed decision on majority of the government's operation, this is why we have to elect professional politicians to do it.

btc: 15sFnThw58hiGHYXyUAasgfauifTEB1ZF6
Schleicher
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 675
Merit: 513



View Profile
November 16, 2012, 04:48:16 PM
 #13

There is no perfect voting system.
This has been proven.
http://tech.mit.edu/V123/N8/8voting.8n.html

myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
November 16, 2012, 05:17:21 PM
 #14

The regular people lacks the expertise and information to make an informed decision on majority of the government's operation, this is why we have to elect professional politicians to do it.
If they're so unskilled and uninformed as to make a good decision on policy, how are they to be expected to be well-informed and skilled enough to make a good decision on selecting a policy maker?

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
interlagos (OP)
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 496
Merit: 500


View Profile
November 16, 2012, 05:26:51 PM
Last edit: November 16, 2012, 06:02:49 PM by interlagos
 #15

So long as politicians are able to make choices independent of the people who voted for them voting will never be fair.

The whole point is to have a convenient and reliable system where people themselves can vote for things that matter to them and not delegate their power to politicians. Think along the lines of dedicating 10 minutes of your time every evening at your computer to vote for something you care about.

Consensus is difficult enough to get working within the context of people who live together in cohousing/ intentional community. Within the scope of a society, its lunacy. Maybe you are searching for another term?

I can start with simple example - there is a need to patch the road shared by 10 families in the neighborhood, nobody else uses that road (so they don't really care) and there is no central authority to call for. How would those families achieve consensus of who does what and who pays what.
It could be that one good guy just goes ahead and fixes it for everybody to benefit from it, but if that doesn't happen there needs to be a reliable mechanism to achieve consensus.

Can I opt out?

Sure!
You won't be able to vote, but if you don't want to/don't care it's totally ok.

EDIT:
This might give an answer to the questions like "who will build the roads?" and
"who will look after the old and sick?" Smiley
Also it doesn't need to get big or centralized, it can start as your local neighborhood of 10 families and stay that way.

Unless your group is going to be 6 people forcing 4 people to do and not do stuff you might as well just skip voting and go with actual consensus. Don't do stuff to people without their permission. You don't even need 10 people you can start by yourself. Don't hurt people and don't make excuses (uniform, election, tradition, etc) for people who do hurt others (including yourself).

There is no forcing of anyone to do anything. People who agreed to participate in the system would have an option to either accept the result of the vote even if they disagree with it or leave that particular consensus-society or never even consider participating in any to begin with. The idea is that people need other people to survive, to grow food, to build houses and those who will learn how to achieve consensus while working together in a most constructive way will prosper and flourish and show an example to other people how things can be done, not that other people have to necessarily follow that example.

Hi, could you explain what you mean by "provably fair"?
Describe precisely what it is, and the how is already done for you.

I can guess at the 'provable' part -- checks and balances to avoid various ways of gaming the system.
But what's the 'fair' part? Does it refer to social justice? Or fair division (game theory) or maybe another definition under the vague umbrella of 'fairness' ?

And just for fun, if you come up with some system (which may indeed be a very good one, I'm not pre-emptively disputing that), but someone else disagrees and wants their 'provably fair' system to be used instead, except that its results are in conflict with your results, how is the final decision made?

I simply meant that the system cannot be rigged/hijacked with fraudulent votes.
It is 'fair' only in that sense and no other meaning was intended.
I think the 4th paragraph in OP describes the mechanism with enough details.

There is nothing about forcing this system against any other system, that decision would simply be left for free market to demonstrate which system works best. I only wanted to point out that with Bitcoin we now have a technical solution to voting problem that never existed before.

Two neighborhoods may vote within themselves to join forces, for example, and those who were opposed to this decision are free to leave and create their own neighborhood or stay alone.

Gang warfare.  Brilliant.

The course of action that people will take in any situation will only reflect their level of development.
If they are aggressive and operate from the position of fear that there isn't enough for everyone we might observe what you just quoted. But it doesn't have to be that way if people want to build things and improve their way of life by using expertise and labor of other people in a consensus-based reality.

The regular people lacks the expertise and information to make an informed decision on majority of the government's operation, this is why we have to elect professional politicians to do it.

This is one of the general misconceptions that there is some 'government operation' and that 'they' know better than 'us' what is best for 'us'. If you delegate that decision making process of what is best for you to other people then you probably expect that those people know you better than you know yourself, which is frankly ridiculous. You are your government, you are your authority, you are unique point of view, you are particular perspective of the infinite - cherish your existence!
interlagos (OP)
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 496
Merit: 500


View Profile
November 16, 2012, 05:29:13 PM
 #16

There is no perfect voting system.
This has been proven.
http://tech.mit.edu/V123/N8/8voting.8n.html

It has also been proven that there is no solution to Byzantine Generals problem, yet here we are with Bitcoin as living example of how it actually works.
lebing
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1288
Merit: 1000

Enabling the maximal migration


View Profile
November 16, 2012, 05:32:09 PM
 #17


Consensus is difficult enough to get working within the context of people who live together in cohousing/ intentional community. Within the scope of a society, its lunacy. Maybe you are searching for another term?

I can start with simple example - there is a need to patch the road shared by 10 families in the neighborhood, nobody else uses that road (so they don't really care) and there is no central authority to call for. How would those families achieve consensus of who does what and who pays what.
It could be that one good guy just goes ahead and fixes it for everybody to benefit from it, but if that doesn't happen there needs to be a reliable mechanism to achieve consensus.

The only reliable mechanism for consensus is training and alot of dedicated work. A casual mechanism that you speak of is frankly impossible. In reality in order to make a decision, someone's opinion will always be overridden... (often for good reason...)

Bro, do you even blockchain?
-E Voorhees
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812
Merit: 1000


View Profile
November 16, 2012, 05:33:19 PM
 #18

The regular people lacks the expertise and information to make an informed decision on majority of the government's operation, this is why we have to elect professional politicians to do it.
If they're so unskilled and uninformed as to make a good decision on policy, how are they to be expected to be well-informed and skilled enough to make a good decision on selecting a policy maker?

They are not, necessarily. And that's why we end up with uninformed policy makers as well.

AnCap: a bunch of dumb people who don't understand that their neighbors are doing stuff that is not good.

Democracy: a bunch of dumb people electing dumb people who enact dumb policies.
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
November 16, 2012, 05:35:21 PM
 #19

I can start with simple example - there is a need to patch the road shared by 10 families in the neighborhood, nobody else uses that road (so they don't really care) and there is no central authority to call for. How would those families achieve consensus of who does what and who pays what.
It could be that one good guy just goes ahead and fixes it for everybody to benefit from it, but if that doesn't happen there needs to be a reliable mechanism to achieve consensus.

One guy decides to fix the road, and asks everyone to pay towards it. (say, in a neighborhood meeting) Using Bitcoin, it would be easy to track how much has been set aside for the road repairs. When enough has been gathered, he fixes the road. It doesn't matter who pays how much, just that the job gets done, and paid for.

This works quite well for Kickstarter projects.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
interlagos (OP)
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 496
Merit: 500


View Profile
November 16, 2012, 05:44:34 PM
 #20

I'm not saying that the mechanism I'm describing is the only way to achieve consensus. In smaller groups a simpler approach might work as well, while it would require some trust in persons handling the voting if there is a voting to begin with.

The goal is to have a trust-free way to achieve consensus via voting.
Maybe it's a better wording than 'provably-fair' even though it is still provable.

EDIT: I have renamed the thread to replace 'fair' with 'trust-free'
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!