'Vote with your bitcoins' voting system

[RealBitcoin]

I had an idea this morning about how to resolve the consensus problem in a transparent and efficient way: Implementing a voting system where the voting shares are weighted by the balance of your account, or in other words a 'Vote with your bitcoins' system.

It would not be a coercive in any way, it would just be a transparent system of hearing out the opinion of people. Miners can still decide what systems to use, and bitcoin users can still decide if they want to use bitcoin or not, this is not about control, it's just about transparent debate.
I am tired of social media shilling and debates that go nowhere, it's better if we have a fully transparent opinion system.


How it would work:
-Implementing a system in core where anyone with X amount of minimal bitcoin balance in an address can issue a question to be voted on
-The vote will be set a time limit, which should be at least 1 month so that everyone has enough time to vote on it
-People would have to sign a message with their bitcoin address, and their address balance recorded =PROOF OF OWNERSHIP OF BALANCE
-People cannot send outgoing transaction from their voting bitcoin address until the voting lasts, to avoid, double-using the same bitcoin for voting again. If they do, their vote from that balance/address is nullified.
-People can vote with multiple addresses, if they store the bitcoins on multiple addresses, all of their bitcoins can be used to vote, but with 1 condition that until the voting lasts those addresses cannot have outgoing transactions. If any of the addresses do have outgoing transactions in the period of voting, that vote cast from that address is nullified.
-After the voting timer runs down, all addresses are checked, those that had outgoing transactions, are removed to avoid cheating, and those that were qualified will get their votes weighted by their balance and given respective voting power relative to how much bitcoin they have on the address.


Short:
-Transparent voting system on blockchain
-Vote with your money, the more money you have the more voting power, running it just like a stock company
-Forbidden outgoing transactions from the voting address to avoid double voting with the same bitcoin
-In the end you just need to calculate the qualified addresses balance by their votes, and it would be very transparent.

I was inspired by this website: http://bitcoinocracy.com , however I think that such important feature has to be included in Core itself, not on a website, because that could carry additional risks.

It can all be impemented in the bitcoin core, and use the OP_RETURN to store a '0' for NO and '1' for YES votes, it only requires 1 bit of space, and a database to collect the signed messages from the addresses.

It can be implemented in the bitcoin core, with GUI interface so that any newbie can vote from it, not just tech people, and API codes can be derived from it so that any other wallet users could vote: Electrum, Armory, Multibit,etc.... Even phone & online wallet users eventually.


Bottom line: This is not a bitcoin government or anything like that, it's just a transparent method of hearing out people's opinion.

For a 6 billion $ entity, we have outgrown social media shilling, and debates that go nowhere, and we need our proprietary system of opinions!

[1715184980]

1715184980

[1715184980]

1715184980

[1715184980]

1715184980

[1715184980]

1715184980

[1715184980]

1715184980

[Lauda]

Essentially this is some sort of system where users would lock their coins (OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY) for X amount of time (described by the system) during the voting period. I guess what should be added is that the vote can be withdrawn (and thus coins unlocked). The reasoning behind this is that people need to use their money and locking their coins for a month (without a way of unlocking them if needed) isn't a smart idea. Who would issue a voting period?

[mkc]

I think this is a great feature.
I am sick and tired some big boys making the decision. And they can not reach a decision soon enough. We should be able to vote according to how many coins we have. This will be fair in some sense.

[piotr_n]

You're going to vote with your bitcoins on implementing a wishing system for devs to a write a code which the miners then shall take?

And you don't see any problems convincing any of the parties involved to actually obey it?

It's not going to happen.

[unamis76]

This is not feasible. The advantages of having such a system do not justify the work needed to implement it. I also don't see how this could be implemented on the code (but I'm not a coding expert). Also, this is why we have places to discuss...

And this too:

-Vote with your money, the more money you have the more voting power, running it just like a stock company

Are you sure you would like this? This would mean that if I had 10000 BTC and you had 10 BTC my opinion would be more valid than yours... You can have 0 BTC and have very accurate and valid opinions about Bitcoin.

[RealBitcoin]

Essentially this is some sort of system where users would lock their coins (OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY) for X amount of time (described by the system) during the voting period. I guess what should be added is that the vote can be withdrawn (and thus coins unlocked). The reasoning behind this is that people need to use their money and locking their coins for a month (without a way of unlocking them if needed) isn't a smart idea. Who would issue a voting period?

Yes, whatever system is more efficient, but this also encourages saving, only people who save have access to vote, so we know that more responsible people are voters, rather than just cowboys that spend like crazy and would not be quality voters normally.

So if you have any savings that you dont touch for atleast 1 month, you are eligible for voting, would be a great filter.


The voting issuance would work like this:

-It would be set a minimum amount for example 1 BTC, or lower, so that to avoid spam, and this would be paid to miners in some way.
-The minimum amount can be paid like as a crowdfunding if multiple little guys want to vote, or if a larger entity wants to hold a voting then they can pay it directly
-But other than this anyone can issue the voting

Are you sure you would like this? This would mean that if I had 10000 BTC and you had 10 BTC my opinion would be more valid than yours... You can have 0 BTC and have very accurate and valid opinions about Bitcoin.

Exactly, because if you have no stake in it then you can just as likely to be a saboteur trying to sabotage bitcoin.

You can still have great ideas about anything, but the same way you have no decision in corporate affairs either, you need to be a majority shareholder to have a say in it.

If you are talented then you can still put out your opinions in a white paper, formally and backed with evidence, but it's just that the bitcoin holders have the final say in it, after all it's their coin.

[croato]

I like this idea. Consensus is very hard if not impossible to achieve so sort of voting system would make important changes and implementations lot easier. Situation with Bitcoin as it is now is pretty bad so voting system (if we make good one) would help a lot in my opinion.

[mkc]

To make it a little bit more fair, you can do all parties has the same voting power, along as he owns more than 1 coin, regardless how many coins he has. Of course if you have 1 million bitcoins, you have absolute voting power.

Only one person has 1 million coins in this world ...

[franky1]

so 1 million people with satoshi dust amounts or 0.01 each would outweigh, lets say a coinbase coldstore of 10,000btc.? im being sarcastic i know its the opposite

so the CEO of coinbase can literally veto the wishes of 1 million people(who own just $4 each) by coinbase showing 10,000btc.
so the CEO of coinbase can veto the wishes of 10,000 people(who own $420 each)  by coinbase showing 10,000btc
so the CEO of coinbase can veto the wishes of 100 people(who own $42,000 each)  by coinbase showing 10,000btc
so the CEO of coinbase can veto the wishes of 10 people(who own $420,000 each)  by coinbase showing 10,000btc

anyone else see the flaw in this? one person able to veto between 10-1mill users?

however

To make it a little bit more fair, you can do all parties has the same voting power, along as he owns more than 1 coin,

this seems more fair.. until we see someone with 10,000 coins splits them up into 10,000 addresses to again gain veto power over 10,000 people


the most easiest thing is to not do any of these side issue voting systems. but instead include the code (without any refusal) and if the community adopt it, then the consensus is reached.
if its not wanted it wont get activated. it will just sit there as unused code. meaningless to the network

doing crappy voting and refusing to add the code to even see if people want it. is not helpful.
by delaying and refusing to even have the code available is a loud display of the polar opposite of trying to find consensus

in short, just add the code and see what happens.. only those refusing to release code are the lemmings that are causing their own contention.

[RealBitcoin]

so 1 million people with satoshi dust amounts or 0.01 each would outweigh, lets say a coinbase coldstore of 10,000btc.? im being sarcastic i know its the opposite

so the CEO of coinbase can literally veto the wishes of 1 million people(who own just $4 each) by coinbase showing 10,000btc.
so the CEO of coinbase can veto the wishes of 10,000 people(who own $420 each)  by coinbase showing 10,000btc
so the CEO of coinbase can veto the wishes of 100 people(who own $42,000 each)  by coinbase showing 10,000btc
so the CEO of coinbase can veto the wishes of 10 people(who own $420,000 each)  by coinbase showing 10,000btc

anyone else see the flaw in this? one person able to veto between 10-1mill users?

however

Yes, if those 1 million users only hold dust amounts of bitcoin, then they dont really matter, nor have contributed anything much to bitcoin and are just newbies.

But that person who collected over 10,000 BTC must run some really big website or service that is a huge part of the community.

So yes in this case that 1 CEO is worth the same amount than 1 million dust users.

this seems more fair.. until we see someone with 10,000 coins splits them up into 10,000 addresses to again gain veto power over 10,000 people

No address count doesnt matter. Read the first post FFS, you cant double vote with the same coins, but you can vote from multple addresses to add up your aggregate voting share if you hold coins in multiple addresses.

[Kprawn]

So what you are saying is, the only people with a say in the matter is the people who have enough money? What happened to the vision of helping the unbanked and all those poor people who have not

had a say or a opinion for years under the old fiat system? In Kenya for instance, a lot of people use M-Pesa on a daily basis, to trade, so they are part of a bigger system. When they get paid, they

spend that money to survive or to pay debt. There are no savings or hoarding for these people, they simply survive from day to day... Do they have no say, because they have no saving or enough

money to vote? ...These are the people, who use that technology on a daily basis... Nope, I do not agree with this. 

[Jet Cash]

If the blocksize debate has been caused by an increase in transactions, do you really want to introduce a system that creates a further increase in transactions that are of no benefit to the money exchange service?

[RealBitcoin]

So what you are saying is, the only people with a say in the matter is the people who have enough money? What happened to the vision of helping the unbanked and all those poor people who have not

had a say or a opinion for years under the old fiat system? In Kenya for instance, a lot of people use M-Pesa on a daily basis, to trade, so they are part of a bigger system. When they get paid, they

spend that money to survive or to pay debt. There are no savings or hoarding for these people, they simply survive from day to day... Do they have no say, because they have no saving or enough

money to vote? ...These are the people, who use that technology on a daily basis... Nope, I do not agree with this. 

But they dont have a stake in it.

How can you compare 1 million users who have 100 satoshi with 1 user that has 1 bitcoin?

It's uncomparable. Basically anyone can have 100 satoshi, just e-mail 100 satoshi to all your friends on facebook.

But to have 1 bitcoin means that you actually hold real bitcoin and have a stake in it.

[Lauda]

If the blocksize debate has been caused by an increase in transactions, do you really want to introduce a system that creates a further increase in transactions that are of no benefit to the money exchange service?

A system could be implemented to avoid transactions I guess (albeit this would be trivial).

But they dont have a stake in it. How can you compare 1 million users who have 100 satoshi with 1 user that has 1 bitcoin?

That's the right question. Even though this is a consensus based algorithm, I don't see how somebody who just went to a faucet and got some dust should be equal to somebody who spent years in the ecosystem (both personally and professionally). These people most likely do not even run a full node, so exactly how did they plan to "have a say in the matter"? This is rather a very complex 'issue', but what the others failed to realize in your thread is that this is just supposed to be another metric (nothing has to be decided based on these votes).

[RealBitcoin]

That's the right question. Even though this is a consensus based algorithm, I don't see how somebody who just went to a faucet and got some dust should be equal to somebody who spent years in the ecosystem (both personally and professionally). These people most likely do not even run a full node, so exactly how did they plan to "have a say in the matter"? This is rather a very complex 'issue', but what the others failed to realize in your thread is that this is just supposed to be another metric (nothing has to be decided based on these votes).

They are socialists, so they want everyone to be equal of course

[Kprawn]

That's the right question. Even though this is a consensus based algorithm, I don't see how somebody who just went to a faucet and got some dust should be equal to somebody who spent years in the ecosystem (both personally and professionally). These people most likely do not even run a full node, so exactly how did they plan to "have a say in the matter"? This is rather a very complex 'issue', but what the others failed to realize in your thread is that this is just supposed to be another metric (nothing has to be decided based on these votes).

They are socialists, so they want everyone to be equal of course

Nope, you are wrong, I live in a Capitalist world and I believe hard work needs to be rewarded. I do not believe in a FREE lunch for anyone, and would rather teach them how to fish, than feeding them

the fish. What I am trying to say is, these people ...{ Who might not have come from a privileged background and inheritance } and who works hard for their money, should be made part of the voting

system. What is the difference between one rich guys distributing his 10 000 Bitcoins to 100 000 addresses and voting with that and having 100 000 poor people voting with their meager earnings?

Do we exclude the poor people, because they do not have enough money to vote? Socialism has nothing to do with this... I am a realist and a capitalist sympathetic to the poor. 

[RealBitcoin]

system. What is the difference between one rich guys distributing his 10 000 Bitcoins to 100 000 addresses and voting with that and having 100 000 poor people voting with their meager earnings?

In that case it's equal.

1000 satoshi x 100,000 poor people = 1 bitcoin voting power for 100,000 poor users

OR

1 bitcoin for 1 more established user


Yes it takes 100,000 poor users in this case to overthrow the voting power of that 1 user? Why? It's not because we are elitist or supremacists.

Its because the 1 user holds more risk alone, he actually put 400$ of his money or labour in bitcoin , and for that risk he should be rewarded with voting power.

The 1000 satoshi guy only put 5 seconds of his time in bitcoin by filling out a CAPTCHA.


So it's not supremacy or elitism, it's just risk & reward, and that is capitalism.

[cameltoe]

I don't see how this would be fair the mining pools and exchanges would have a major impact on this would it not?

[Lauda]

I don't see how this would be fair the mining pools and exchanges would have a major impact on this would it not?

1) Miners have a major impact today.
2) Exchanges don't have a lot of their own coins. They shouldn't time-lock the coins of their customers.

What is the difference between one rich guys distributing his 10 000 Bitcoins to 100 000 addresses and voting with that and having 100 000 poor people voting with their meager earnings?

It is not the number of addresses that is important in the proposed system. This would not work anyhow as somebody could redistribute his wealth among many (as you've said). Again, it seems that people don't realize that this would just be another metric. However, OP without a BIP and communication with the developers I doubt that this or a similar system is going to be implemented. There are just things that are more important.

[RealBitcoin]

I don't see how this would be fair the mining pools and exchanges would have a major impact on this would it not?

Exchanges do a lot of outgoing transactions, they would be forbidden to vote according to this system.

However they also hold coins of other people and it would be immoral to vote with their coins, perhaps even illegal because they impersonate other people's will.

Most folks would have to reposess their coins to avoid them being used for voting against their will.

[RealBitcoin]

However, OP without a BIP and communication with the developers I doubt that this or a similar system is going to be implemented. There are just things that are more important.

I just want to put out this idea first for consideration and see what other people think about it.

You will have plenty of time implementing it, and its not that urgent at the moment, this is just for the future to have a transparent opinion system.

It make take even 10 years to get to this point.

[HostFat]

The main flaw of this voting system is that it is based on the wrong idea that bitcoins has the same value to everyone.
The value of everything is subjective.

"My 10 BTC have an huge value against your 1000 BTC, I will not give them to no one for any possible thing, my precious bitcoins!"

[Kprawn]

system. What is the difference between one rich guys distributing his 10 000 Bitcoins to 100 000 addresses and voting with that and having 100 000 poor people voting with their meager earnings?

In that case it's equal.

1000 satoshi x 100,000 poor people = 1 bitcoin voting power for 100,000 poor users

OR

1 bitcoin for 1 more established user


Yes it takes 100,000 poor users in this case to overthrow the voting power of that 1 user? Why? It's not because we are elitist or supremacists.

Its because the 1 user holds more risk alone, he actually put 400$ of his money or labour in bitcoin , and for that risk he should be rewarded with voting power.

The 1000 satoshi guy only put 5 seconds of his time in bitcoin by filling out a CAPTCHA.


So it's not supremacy or elitism, it's just risk & reward, and that is capitalism.

What risk are you talking about? If both the poor person with 1 BTC and the rich person with 1000 BTC have their coin in cold storage, their risk is the same. 1 BTC to a poor person, is basically the

same as 1000 BTC for a rich guy. I also do not see the relevance of the "labor" you are talking about... The rich guy might have won the 1000 BTC in gambling and the poor guy might have cleaned

toilets for 6 months to have saved up for that 1 BTC hoard. The other flaw comes in with the signing of the address from coins in cold storage. 

[Lauda]

The value of everything is subjective.

"My 10 BTC have an huge value against your 1000 BTC, I will not give them to no one for any possible thing, my precious bitcoins!"

No. That's subjective and related to sentimental value then. How you perceive the value of your coins is your thing, but objectively that does not change their value. Their value is determined by the market regardless whether you agree with it or not.

It make take even 10 years to get to this point.

You can learn C++ yourself and implement it by then.

[RealBitcoin]

The main flaw of this voting system is that it is based on the wrong idea that bitcoins has the same value to everyone.
The value of everything is subjective.

"My 10 BTC have an huge value against your 1000 BTC, I will not give them to no one for any possible thing, my precious bitcoins!"

A market is an aggregate of subjective opinions, that creates an objective opinion.

After all what is objective? The value-weighted-average of subjective opinion no?


So that means that if 1 say 1000 BTC can buy me a mansion, then it's only true if the mansion seller values the 1000 BTC by more than he values the mansion.

The parties each have to value the counterparty item more, that is why the BID & ASK prices exist.

[RealBitcoin]

What risk are you talking about? If both the poor person with 1 BTC and the rich person with 1000 BTC have their coin in cold storage, their risk is the same. 1 BTC to a poor person, is basically the

same as 1000 BTC for a rich guy. I also do not see the relevance of the "labor" you are talking about... The rich guy might have won the 1000 BTC in gambling and the poor guy might have cleaned

toilets for 6 months to have saved up for that 1 BTC hoard. The other flaw comes in with the signing of the address from coins in cold storage. 

Nonsense, the risk isnt the same.

Bitcoin is objective man, you are basically saying that 1 BTC = 1000 BTC, which is bullshit.

Of course the 1000 BTC is worth more than 1 BTC, how can you even say such nonsense. And the risk is more too.

I can easily hold 1 BTC in an online wallet. But with 1000 BTC, i could not sleep well at night, so I rather have that in cold storage.


Haha trust me hardly any people win 1000 BTC in gambling so this is not even a remote issue. Or he gambles it again and loses it all, if he doesnt then he proven himself to be responsible and has the right to keep the 1000 BTC and also vote with it. If he loses it, then he is a moron, and doesnt get to vote.

The toilet cleaner has also worked hard for 1 BTC, but unfortunately that is how much his labour is worth, 1 BTC.

After all we dont want only toilet cleaners to vote on important bitcoin stuff, that would be very ashaming for bitcoin.


Signing the address from cold storage? What is the problem with that?

If you have good RNG then it should not be an issue.

[hv_]

I also like the idea of voting and maybe if there are 2 or more options, generate needed adresses to vote into. From the winner devs get paid, loosers get back all. Win Win. Sounds good?

[Kprawn]

What risk are you talking about? If both the poor person with 1 BTC and the rich person with 1000 BTC have their coin in cold storage, their risk is the same. 1 BTC to a poor person, is basically the

same as 1000 BTC for a rich guy. I also do not see the relevance of the "labor" you are talking about... The rich guy might have won the 1000 BTC in gambling and the poor guy might have cleaned

toilets for 6 months to have saved up for that 1 BTC hoard. The other flaw comes in with the signing of the address from coins in cold storage.  

Nonsense, the risk isnt the same.

Bitcoin is objective man, you are basically saying that 1 BTC = 1000 BTC, which is bullshit.

Of course the 1000 BTC is worth more than 1 BTC, how can you even say such nonsense. And the risk is more too.

I can easily hold 1 BTC in an online wallet. But with 1000 BTC, i could not sleep well at night, so I rather have that in cold storage.


Haha trust me hardly any people win 1000 BTC in gambling so this is not even a remote issue. Or he gambles it again and loses it all, if he doesnt then he proven himself to be responsible and has the right to keep the 1000 BTC and also vote with it. If he loses it, then he is a moron, and doesnt get to vote.

The toilet cleaner has also worked hard for 1 BTC, but unfortunately that is how much his labour is worth, 1 BTC.

After all we dont want only toilet cleaners to vote on important bitcoin stuff, that would be very ashaming for bitcoin.


Signing the address from cold storage? What is the problem with that?

If you have good RNG then it should not be an issue.

You should be ashamed of the statements you are making towards poor and hard working people in this world. The current fiat system favors the rich and you want to apply this same corrupt system

to Bitcoin? This world would be a filthy shitty place, without the toilet cleaners, and for you to say that they do not have a say, is simply disrespectful towards them and other people doing these

kinds of jobs.

The gambler scenario was just an example, it could just as well be a rich kid with no values or experience or integrity or technical knowledge... having the biggest influence or vote. I would rather

have a toilet cleaner have a say, than some ignorant rich kid, who got lucky when he inherited all his wealth and decided to buy some Bitcoins for the fun of it or to brag to his friends.

[RealBitcoin]

You should be ashamed of the statements you are making towards poor and hard working people in this world. The current fiat system favors the rich and you want to apply this same corrupt system

to Bitcoin? This world would be a filthy shitty place, without the toilet cleaners, and for you to say that they do not have a say, is simply disrespectful towards them and other people doing these

kinds of jobs.

The gambler scenario was just an example, it could just as well be a rich kid with no values or experience or integrity or technical knowledge... having the biggest influence or vote. I would rather

have a toilet cleaner have a say, than some ignorant rich kid, who got lucky when he inherited all his wealth and decided to buy some Bitcoins for the fun of it or to brag to his friends.

Sorry mister egalitarian, bitcoin is a system of intellectuals, programmers and people who are expert in what they do.

Its not a democracy and it should never be. We need intellectual specialists on deciding the best for bitcoin not uneducated dumbasses that know nothing about it.


Ignorant rich kids lose their money fast, I`m talking about real valuable and disciplined people here that would form the intellectual elite of bitcoin.

[Lauda]

Its not a democracy and it should never be. We need intellectual specialists on deciding the best for bitcoin not uneducated dumbasses that know nothing about it.

You're wrong! Why else would people be voting for such a wonderful and intelligent man such as Trump in the US if democracy wasn't working
</sarcasm> If the masses were making decisions Bitcoin would most likely self destruct within a very short amount of time.

I also like the idea of voting and maybe if there are 2 or more options, generate needed adresses to vote into. From the winner devs get paid, loosers get back all. Win Win. Sounds good?

So basically you're saying that if I vote and my opinion "passes" I lose all my money? I don't see people voting in such a system. Did I misunderstand something?

[hv_]

Its not a democracy and it should never be. We need intellectual specialists on deciding the best for bitcoin not uneducated dumbasses that know nothing about it.

You're wrong! Why else would people be voting for such a wonderful and intelligent man such as Trump in the US if democracy wasn't working
</sarcasm> If the masses were making decisions Bitcoin would most likely self destruct within a very short amount of time.

I also like the idea of voting and maybe if there are 2 or more options, generate needed adresses to vote into. From the winner devs get paid, loosers get back all. Win Win. Sounds good?

So basically you're saying that if I vote and my opinion "passes" I lose all my money? I don't see people voting in such a system. Did I misunderstand something?

Needs to be poperly designed, that yes,  winners'll lose some money, but you get the thing implemented & devs are paid.

Loosers get mony back but nothing implemented.

All win win  

[RealBitcoin]

Its not a democracy and it should never be. We need intellectual specialists on deciding the best for bitcoin not uneducated dumbasses that know nothing about it.

You're wrong! Why else would people be voting for such a wonderful and intelligent man such as Trump in the US if democracy wasn't working
</sarcasm> If the masses were making decisions Bitcoin would most likely self destruct within a very short amount of time.

I also like the idea of voting and maybe if there are 2 or more options, generate needed adresses to vote into. From the winner devs get paid, loosers get back all. Win Win. Sounds good?

So basically you're saying that if I vote and my opinion "passes" I lose all my money? I don't see people voting in such a system. Did I misunderstand something?

"Let's vote your coins out of your balance"

Or

"Let's change the mining algo so that every newbies gets 100 free bitcoins"


It sounds very dumb for bitcoin, yet these folks do the same thing in the fiat economy under democracy and socialism.

I`m starting to think that democracy itself was a huge mistake.

[hv_]

Its not a democracy and it should never be. We need intellectual specialists on deciding the best for bitcoin not uneducated dumbasses that know nothing about it.

You're wrong! Why else would people be voting for such a wonderful and intelligent man such as Trump in the US if democracy wasn't working
</sarcasm> If the masses were making decisions Bitcoin would most likely self destruct within a very short amount of time.

I also like the idea of voting and maybe if there are 2 or more options, generate needed adresses to vote into. From the winner devs get paid, loosers get back all. Win Win. Sounds good?

So basically you're saying that if I vote and my opinion "passes" I lose all my money? I don't see people voting in such a system. Did I misunderstand something?

"Let's vote your coins out of your balance"

Or

"Let's change the mining algo so that every newbies gets 100 free bitcoins"


It sounds very dumb for bitcoin, yet these folks do the same thing in the fiat economy under democracy and socialism.

I`m starting to think that democracy itself was a huge mistake.

Who should do the Bitcoin Hitler ?

[Lauda]

Who should be the Bitcoin Hitler ?

Godwin's law strikes again. Just because the traditional democracy system is flawed and should not be applicable, that does not mean that there is a need for a 'Hitler'. Things aren't simply black and white.

[winspiral]

Why do you want voting?
let it be so ...

[hv_]

Who should be the Bitcoin Hitler ?

Godwin's law strikes again. Just because the traditional democracy system is flawed and should not be applicable, that does not mean that there is a need for a 'Hitler'. Things aren't simply black and white.

Yes- we would be better off having quantum comps, all those new enldess colours :-)

[cr1776]

Its not a democracy and it should never be. We need intellectual specialists on deciding the best for bitcoin not uneducated dumbasses that know nothing about it.

You're wrong! Why else would people be voting for such a wonderful and intelligent man such as Trump in the US if democracy wasn't working
</sarcasm> If the masses were making decisions Bitcoin would most likely self destruct within a very short amount of time.

I also like the idea of voting and maybe if there are 2 or more options, generate needed adresses to vote into. From the winner devs get paid, loosers get back all. Win Win. Sounds good?

So basically you're saying that if I vote and my opinion "passes" I lose all my money? I don't see people voting in such a system. Did I misunderstand something?

"Let's vote your coins out of your balance"

Or

"Let's change the mining algo so that every newbies gets 100 free bitcoins"


It sounds very dumb for bitcoin, yet these folks do the same thing in the fiat economy under democracy and socialism.

I`m starting to think that democracy itself was a huge mistake.

There shouldn't be many hard forks.  The reversion to a larger block size and a new opcode for side chains are two that will likely occur.  Perhaps re-enabling some of the other opcodes that are disabled.  After that, the need for hard forks should be extremely rare.  Look at IPv4 vs IPv6 or changes to TCP/IP, DNS, SMTP etc.  Changes are few and far between for good reason. For bitcoin, the need for changes should be similarly rare and to make matters worse carry systemic, catastrophic risk to all of bitcoin.  It is like trying to swap out an engine on an airplane while cruising at 30000 feet.

By the design of bitcoin changes should be extremely rare or only needed in the event of a catastrophe.  And changes at the whim of a simple majority could easily cause it to morph into a fiat type system which would result in the destruction of bitcoin.

Consequently making voting easier and more common is a bad idea.  Bitcoin isn't a democracy, it should be a dictatorship of math and protocol.  Or perhaps if you prefer, the protocol is the Constitution and it should be rarely, if ever, changed.  The option is that if someone wants a change, just create a new protocol/Constitution.  Every change to the protocol creates an alt-coin.  Anyone can change the protocol, create this alt-coin and convince people to switch.

[winspiral]

Its not a democracy and it should never be. We need intellectual specialists on deciding the best for bitcoin not uneducated dumbasses that know nothing about it.

You're wrong! Why else would people be voting for such a wonderful and intelligent man such as Trump in the US if democracy wasn't working
</sarcasm> If the masses were making decisions Bitcoin would most likely self destruct within a very short amount of time.

I also like the idea of voting and maybe if there are 2 or more options, generate needed adresses to vote into. From the winner devs get paid, loosers get back all. Win Win. Sounds good?

So basically you're saying that if I vote and my opinion "passes" I lose all my money? I don't see people voting in such a system. Did I misunderstand something?

"Let's vote your coins out of your balance"

Or

"Let's change the mining algo so that every newbies gets 100 free bitcoins"


It sounds very dumb for bitcoin, yet these folks do the same thing in the fiat economy under democracy and socialism.

I`m starting to think that democracy itself was a huge mistake.

There shouldn't be many hard forks.  The reversion to a larger block size and a new opcode for side chains are two that will likely occur.  Perhaps re-enabling some of the other opcodes that are disabled.  After that, the need for hard forks should be extremely rare.  Look at IPv4 vs IPv6 or changes to TCP/IP, DNS, SMTP etc.  Changes are few and far between for good reason. For bitcoin, the need for changes should be similarly rare and to make matters worse carry systemic, catastrophic risk to all of bitcoin.  It is like trying to swap out an engine on an airplane while cruising at 30000 feet.

By the design of bitcoin changes should be extremely rare or only needed in the event of a catastrophe.  And changes at the whim of a simple majority could easily cause it to morph into a fiat type system which would result in the destruction of bitcoin.

Consequently making voting easier and more common is a bad idea.  Bitcoin isn't a democracy, it should be a dictatorship of math and protocol.  Or perhaps if you prefer, the protocol is the Constitution and it should be rarely, if ever, changed.  The option is that if someone wants a change, just create a new protocol/Constitution.  Every change to the protocol creates an alt-coin.  Anyone can change the protocol, create this alt-coin and convince people to switch.

Yes...let it so...create new alt-coins and it it is better...people will switch,but please let the actual bitcoin how it is...

[unamis76]

The voting issuance would work like this:

-It would be set a minimum amount for example 1 BTC, or lower, so that to avoid spam, and this would be paid to miners in some way.
-The minimum amount can be paid like as a crowdfunding if multiple little guys want to vote, or if a larger entity wants to hold a voting then they can pay it directly
-But other than this anyone can issue the voting

Are you sure you would like this? This would mean that if I had 10000 BTC and you had 10 BTC my opinion would be more valid than yours... You can have 0 BTC and have very accurate and valid opinions about Bitcoin.

Exactly, because if you have no stake in it then you can just as likely to be a saboteur trying to sabotage bitcoin.

You can still have great ideas about anything, but the same way you have no decision in corporate affairs either, you need to be a majority shareholder to have a say in it.

If you are talented then you can still put out your opinions in a white paper, formally and backed with evidence, but it's just that the bitcoin holders have the final say in it, after all it's their coin.

This is true. Just like you can have a lot of coins, support a certain change that you believe might raise the price, actually get it to raise or wait for it to raise and then dump. I agree that having a lot of coins most likely makes you are very interested in Bitcoin and it is unlikely that there are people like this that will just dump when they see a price they deem to be good. However I don't have many coins and I'm deeply interested in seeing Bitcoin succeed, for reasons much bigger than private profit and/or monetary gains and I want to be regarded and listened to if I have an idea that's really worth implementing.

This is unpowering the poor, exactly like the monetary system we already have in place, and I have to disagree with it. I can see what you mean with your voting system proposal, but I still don't think it's reasonable to have this. The risk of having a rogue party trying to disrupt Bitcoin is, I think, nothing compared to having a poor party trying to get a good point across and failing to be heard, in a system where you pay to be heard, or at least where you pay to get changes implemented. Governments would then be able to have a large stake on what concerns Bitcoin...

Its because the 1 user holds more risk alone, he actually put 400$ of his money or labour in bitcoin , and for that risk he should be rewarded with voting power.

If one is not willing to risk this amount for a greater good of Bitcoin, then I think one has to reconsider his stake in Bitcoin... Power comes with responsability. We would be doomed if a person with such power would be irresponsible.

Please don't take my replies as a negative criticism. It's just my opinion I have a pretty strong opinion on this subject and I hope I got my point across just as nicely as you've been getting yours.

[RealBitcoin]

There shouldn't be many hard forks.  The reversion to a larger block size and a new opcode for side chains are two that will likely occur.  Perhaps re-enabling some of the other opcodes that are disabled.  After that, the need for hard forks should be extremely rare.  Look at IPv4 vs IPv6 or changes to TCP/IP, DNS, SMTP etc.  Changes are few and far between for good reason. For bitcoin, the need for changes should be similarly rare and to make matters worse carry systemic, catastrophic risk to all of bitcoin.  It is like trying to swap out an engine on an airplane while cruising at 30000 feet.

By the design of bitcoin changes should be extremely rare or only needed in the event of a catastrophe.  And changes at the whim of a simple majority could easily cause it to morph into a fiat type system which would result in the destruction of bitcoin.

Consequently making voting easier and more common is a bad idea.  Bitcoin isn't a democracy, it should be a dictatorship of math and protocol.  Or perhaps if you prefer, the protocol is the Constitution and it should be rarely, if ever, changed.  The option is that if someone wants a change, just create a new protocol/Constitution.  Every change to the protocol creates an alt-coin.  Anyone can change the protocol, create this alt-coin and convince people to switch.

I`m not a technical expert but I dont think you need any hardfork of the protocol to implement my idea.

You only need to code this feature inside the client.

[RealBitcoin]

This is true. Just like you can have a lot of coins, support a certain change that you believe might raise the price, actually get it to raise or wait for it to raise and then dump. I agree that having a lot of coins most likely makes you are very interested in Bitcoin and it is unlikely that there are people like this that will just dump when they see a price they deem to be good. However I don't have many coins and I'm deeply interested in seeing Bitcoin succeed, for reasons much bigger than private profit and/or monetary gains and I want to be regarded and listened to if I have an idea that's really worth implementing.

I dont have a lot of coins, but I`m still interested in bitcoin.

This is unpowering the poor, exactly like the monetary system we already have in place, and I have to disagree with it. I can see what you mean with your voting system proposal, but I still don't think it's reasonable to have this. The risk of having a rogue party trying to disrupt Bitcoin is, I think, nothing compared to having a poor party trying to get a good point across and failing to be heard, in a system where you pay to be heard, or at least where you pay to get changes implemented. Governments would then be able to have a large stake on what concerns Bitcoin...

The poor is already unpowered by being poor. But in a free market they have the opportunity to rise above.

They can climb up the ladder anytime, but this is a ranking system and only those that earned their ranks can have the benefits of it.

Think of it like your forum account, you are a hero member, and that proves that you have earned it and are far above a newbie.

And that is how it should be.

If one is not willing to risk this amount for a greater good of Bitcoin, then I think one has to reconsider his stake in Bitcoin... Power comes with responsability. We would be doomed if a person with such power would be irresponsible.

Please don't take my replies as a negative criticism. It's just my opinion I have a pretty strong opinion on this subject and I hope I got my point across just as nicely as you've been getting yours.

That is just theory, but in reality, those that hold larger sums are much more responsible than their many counterparts with less funds. Otherwise they would have lost it long time ago.

Of course too much centralized power is not good either. We must find the perfect balance between that, and the free market will sort that out.

However I`d rather trust 20-30 professional and wealthy bitcoin entrepreneurs or specialists than 10,000 faucet newbies.

[cr1776]

There shouldn't be many hard forks.  The reversion to a larger block size and a new opcode for side chains are two that will likely occur.  Perhaps re-enabling some of the other opcodes that are disabled.  After that, the need for hard forks should be extremely rare.  Look at IPv4 vs IPv6 or changes to TCP/IP, DNS, SMTP etc.  Changes are few and far between for good reason. For bitcoin, the need for changes should be similarly rare and to make matters worse carry systemic, catastrophic risk to all of bitcoin.  It is like trying to swap out an engine on an airplane while cruising at 30000 feet.

By the design of bitcoin changes should be extremely rare or only needed in the event of a catastrophe.  And changes at the whim of a simple majority could easily cause it to morph into a fiat type system which would result in the destruction of bitcoin.

Consequently making voting easier and more common is a bad idea.  Bitcoin isn't a democracy, it should be a dictatorship of math and protocol.  Or perhaps if you prefer, the protocol is the Constitution and it should be rarely, if ever, changed.  The option is that if someone wants a change, just create a new protocol/Constitution.  Every change to the protocol creates an alt-coin.  Anyone can change the protocol, create this alt-coin and convince people to switch.

I`m not a technical expert but I dont think you need any hardfork of the protocol to implement my idea.

You only need to code this feature inside the client.

No one said you did need a hard fork for the the idea.  In fact, you don't even need to implement your idea in a client, just with RPC commands - it is easy enough that shouldn't be in the Bitcoin Core.  A lightweight client would be better otherwise you'd have to download the entire block chain to vote.

Perhaps the assumption that you were proposing that people vote on forking changes bitcoin was wrong, but the follow-up discussion seemed to tend towards using this voting mechanism to vote on changes to bitcoin itself vs on who should win an US/EU election.  ;-)

[funkenstein]

You might be interested in

coin-vote.com


As written up:


http://vixra.org/abs/1506.0163

[RealBitcoin]

You might be interested in

coin-vote.com


As written up:


http://vixra.org/abs/1506.0163

Yes its similar to bitcoinocracy.com, but it has to be implemented in the wallet softwares to be more resilient.

Those websites are vulnerable to DDOS, and the voting system can be distrupted. Such important feature needs to be in the wallet itself.

[funkenstein]

You might be interested in

coin-vote.com


As written up:


http://vixra.org/abs/1506.0163

Yes its similar to bitcoinocracy.com, but it has to be implemented in the wallet softwares to be more resilient.

Those websites are vulnerable to DDOS, and the voting system can be distrupted. Such important feature needs to be in the wallet itself.

Vulnerable to DDOS? 

First of all nobody uses these sites.  The interest in provably fair voting for the public is at the moment nil.

Second of all, the database of votes could be mirrored ad infinitum.  There is no need to log in here.  The database has no need to be secret.  No coins are held.

OK, it is conceivable that if a given vote became important and popular then somebody who didn't like the result would try to ddos the site.  However in this case we would simply dump the database on various public forums and allow votes on various other public forums.. pastebins, etc.  This is not an exchange or gambling site which can be brought down with a DDOS.  We hold no coin and all data is public at all times.   

[DuddlyDoRight]

Have thermal printers at voting booths that give people SHA-3 hashes of their voter data they can use to lookup public voting records to verify there votes. Also allow SSN lookup(without their other data to avoid ID theft). Beats all possible fraud and costs less than any system used to date.

The thing is people want to hide their opinions though. You can't do this system because people are deceptive(speaks volumes about "society"). I'd give them an AES key to decrypt and verify their data and let them look up with their SSN.

If it was all open though anyone could both catch election fraud and catch data manipulation. Not even nations of people working together could beat it because any one citizen could detect changes at any time.

The systems contractors and officials come up with are ridiculous.. They try to just protect things with policies and partial cryptography and they usually don't even know how to do -that-. It's usually some fat security turd nobody has ever heard of and who has never done any notable research doing as little as possible for as much as possible and selling fat lazy state employees on the integrity of their work..

I could make an epic rant on security firms who do audits for broker firms and state offices. They get away with so much just because their work is never really tested..

[2112]

Have thermal printers at voting booths that give people SHA-3 hashes of their voter data they can use to lookup public voting records to verify there votes. Also allow SSN lookup(without their other data to avoid ID theft). Beats all possible fraud and costs less than any system used to date.

That is more or less the dream of the European neo-Nazis that would facilitate organized voter intimidation and allow the party bosses to verify that their voters "voted correctly".

Mike Hearn proposed a variant of this using Trezor or similar devices, use search.

Opps, sorry. I "could of" engaged an illiterate.

The nazis could of just as easily used the most recent US voting system. If it can be tallied and has voter identification the nazis could of used it..

Have a OTP per voter with no other personal info? Nazis could of used it..

This sounds as rational and logical as most stuff I hear from left-wing enlightenment though..

Ninja edit:

The nazis could of just as easily used the most recent US voting system. If it can be tallied and has voter identification the nazis could of used it..

Have a OTP per voter with no other personal info? Nazis could of used it, or just changed the vote since they control the data.. You won't give us your OTP?[family is killed]

This sounds as rational and logical as most stuff I hear from left-wing enlightenment though.. In the modern world you'll never get away with forcing millions or hundred of millions of people to vote a certain way and if each voter can validate their vote fraud becomes impossible. If a small country tried to force votes it's be extremely apparent to the rest of the world and domestic citizens..

Again people like to hide votes though because nobody wants the public to know this dislike welfare or immigrants, for example.

Another edit:

The nazis could of just as easily used the most recent US voting system. If it can be tallied and has voter identification the nazis could of used it..

Have a OTP per voter with no other personal info? Nazis could of used it, or just changed the vote since they control the data.. You won't give us your OTP?[family is killed]

This sounds as rational and logical as most stuff I hear from left-wing enlightenment though.. In the modern world you'll never get away with forcing millions or hundred of millions of people to vote a certain way and if each voter can validate their vote fraud becomes impossible. If a small country tried to force votes it'd be extremely apparent to the rest of the world and domestic citizens..

Again, it's got nothing to do with fraud and security and everything to do with anonymity. Nobody wants an immediate relative to ask them to pull up their vote and see that they voted for higher taxes on farmers because they dislike laborers, for example.

I challenge you to make a system where not even the tally agents can identify the voter and there be no apparent fraud.. Else you're making a nazi system cause you're racist or don't like Starbucks lol..

[DuddlyDoRight]

Have thermal printers at voting booths that give people SHA-3 hashes of their voter data they can use to lookup public voting records to verify there votes. Also allow SSN lookup(without their other data to avoid ID theft). Beats all possible fraud and costs less than any system used to date.

That is more or less the dream of the European neo-Nazis that would facilitate organized voter intimidation and allow the party bosses to verify that their voters "voted correctly".

Mike Hearn proposed a variant of this using Trezor or similar devices, use search.

The nazis could of just as easily used the most recent US voting system. If it can be tallied and has voter identification the nazis could of used it..

Have a OTP per voter with no other personal info? Nazis could of used it, or just changed the vote since they control the data.. You won't give us your OTP?[family is killed]

This sounds as rational and logical as most stuff I hear from left-wing enlightenment though.. In the modern world you'll never get away with forcing millions or hundred of millions of people to vote a certain way and if each voter can validate their vote fraud becomes impossible. If a small country tried to force votes it'd be extremely apparent to the rest of the world and domestic citizens..

Again, it's got nothing to do with fraud and security and everything to do with anonymity. Nobody wants an immediate relative to ask them to pull up their vote and see that they voted for higher taxes on farmers because they dislike laborers, for example.

I challenge you to make a system where not even the tally agents can identify the voter and there be no apparent fraud.. Else you're making a nazi system cause you're racist or don't like Starbucks lol..

[watashi-kokoto]

Well everyone voted for Nazis so what do you expect? Bitcoiners would vote for Hitler obviously.

[RealBitcoin]

Voting has to be anonymous guys. I`m not sure why you are so uneducated about this.

If voting is not anonymous, then the majority party can just coerce and threaten people to vote for them, and when they get into power they will put the opposition members in gulags.

Therefore, voting has to remain anonymous, but still transparent, and bitcoin can offer both.

[DuddlyDoRight]

Voting has to be anonymous guys. I`m not sure why you are so uneducated about this.

If voting is not anonymous, then the majority party can just coerce and threaten people to vote for them, and when they get into power they will put the opposition members in gulags.

Therefore, voting has to remain anonymous, but still transparent, and bitcoin can offer both.

I'm not sure if you're aware but a random number sequence or hash is just as good as a name to your ruling fascists.. Actually it makes modifying data even easier because they have to talley it and as you say only fascist would have public records..

[RealBitcoin]

How do you make a voting system where there is no unique-data and thus no voter-access per-vote and it be tamper proof from the people who tally the data

You vote with bitcoins, every bitcoin is unique you cant vote multiple times.

You just make sure that the voting address cannot have output transactions in the time of voting, and nobody can vote twice.

The votes are then weighted by the amount of bitcoin you vote with. Your bitcoins aren't spent in the process.

Just read the first post, its all laid down there.

[DuddlyDoRight]

How do you make a voting system where there is no unique-data and thus no voter-access per-vote and it be tamper proof from the people who tally the data

You vote with bitcoins, every bitcoin is unique you cant vote multiple times.

You just make sure that the voting address cannot have output transactions in the time of voting, and nobody can vote twice.

The votes are then weighted by the amount of bitcoin you vote with. Your bitcoins aren't spent in the process.

Just read the first post, its all laid down there.

WTF? That's a hash per vote you just said was fascist after I first suggested it here. Do even know how the bitcoin ledger works? You also criticized my public data reference so your "nazis" wouldn't even have to process the data if they chose not to. Remember 100% of logic of your criticism relies on the evils being in power over the voting population.. Why would they not control voting of a nation they controlled already with military force or even just with -just enough- influence?

You're basically now suggesting the system you just said was fascist..

[RealBitcoin]

WTF? That's a hash per vote you just said was fascist after I first suggested it here. Do even know how the bitcoin ledger works? You also criticized my public data reference so your "nazis" wouldn't even have to process the data if they chose not to. Remember 100% of logic of your criticism relies on the evils being in power over the voting population.. Why would they not control voting of a nation they controlled already with military force?

I dont know who are you and i dont even remember talking to you, you have a new avatar, so i`m not sure i remember you.

But what I`m referring to here is just an opinion poll, i dont want this to be a coercive system to control bitcoin, but it's always nice to have a voting pool to see what the majority opinion is (weighted by capital of course)

[DuddlyDoRight]

WTF? That's a hash per vote you just said was fascist after I first suggested it here. Do even know how the bitcoin ledger works? You also criticized my public data reference so your "nazis" wouldn't even have to process the data if they chose not to. Remember 100% of logic of your criticism relies on the evils being in power over the voting population.. Why would they not control voting of a nation they controlled already with military force?

I dont know who are you and i dont even remember talking to you, you have a new avatar, so i`m not sure i remember you.

But what I`m referring to here is just an opinion poll, i dont want this to be a coercive system to control bitcoin, but it's always nice to have a voting pool to see what the majority opinion is (weighted by capital of course)

"Voting has to be anonymous guys. I`m not sure why you are so uneducated about this."

Then you suggest as hash per vote in an accessible ledger.. Like the "nazi" person I don't think you realize you're still using unique data per vote on top of using public quantifiable data that means nothing if it's meant to defend against a malicious tally party..

[RealBitcoin]

"Voting has to be anonymous guys. I`m not sure why you are so uneducated about this."

Then you suggest as hash per vote in an accessible ledger..

I`m not sure what you are talking about.

The voters vote with their coins, if the coin identity is not revealed, the voter's shouldn't be either.

You know how bitcoin privacy works


Person -> Bitcoin Address -> Bitcoin voting hash

So if his address is already public, then his identity is already exposed.

[DuddlyDoRight]

"Voting has to be anonymous guys. I`m not sure why you are so uneducated about this."

Then you suggest as hash per vote in an accessible ledger..

I`m not sure what you are talking about.

The voters vote with their coins, if the coin identity is not revealed, the voter's shouldn't be either.

You know how bitcoin privacy works


Person -> Bitcoin Address -> Bitcoin voting hash

So if his address is already public, then his identity is already exposed.

You said "anonymous" then suggest unique hashes in a public ledger that's meant to go to a privatized tally.. I'm not sure how you're confused by the contradiction where you just said a person who suggested the same model(minus -only in the hands of a private party- which defeats the purpose entirely) was "uneducated"..

The talley processing is vulnerable in your model without public tally of at least the choices. I'm not even sure how it's humanly possible to not see this but you and -everything is racist- guy somehow don't..

[RealBitcoin]

You said "anonymous" then suggest unique hashes in a public ledger that's meant to go to a privatized tally.. I'm not sure how you're confused by the contradiction where you just said a person who suggested the same model(minus -only in the hands of a private party- which defeats the purpose entirely) was "uneducated"..

There is already that zerocash system coming out soon that will anonymize bitcoin transactions and make bitcoin adresses anonymous.

After that this should not be an issue. So those that would want their voting privacy kept, will keep it.

Those that want their voting info to be public will just post it on facebook anyway, not everyone likes privacy,but those that do will have an option to have it.

[DuddlyDoRight]

You said "anonymous" then suggest unique hashes in a public ledger that's meant to go to a privatized tally.. I'm not sure how you're confused by the contradiction where you just said a person who suggested the same model(minus -only in the hands of a private party- which defeats the purpose entirely) was "uneducated"..

There is already that zerocash system coming out soon that will anonymize bitcoin transactions and make bitcoin adresses anonymous.

After that this should not be an issue. So those that would want their voting privacy kept, will keep it.

Those that want their voting info to be public will just post it on facebook anyway, not everyone likes privacy,but those that do will have an option to have it.

Still vulnerable. To what I said last-post plus forced or automated voting.. Russia would love anonymous voting where nobody could validate voters including the voters.. Again all based on the -fact- you and the other guy denounced a public tally or ledger..

You're actually making voter fraud easier because you don't understand your own concept..

[RealBitcoin]

Still vulnerable. To what I said last-post plus forced or automated voting.. Russia would love anonymous voting where nobody could validate voters including the voters.. Again all based on the -fact- you and the other guy denounced a public tally or ledger..

You're actually making voter fraud easier because you don't understand your own concept..

You dont understand my concept.

Voter validation in my system is irrelevant, because it's not the individual that is voting but the capital.

The more capital you have the more voting power, it's that simple. You can vote from many addresses, but 1 bitcoin only gets to vote once, since the output transactions are forbidden.

And thats it, the same coin cant vote twice, and you vote with as many coins you have. All transparent, and anonymous (if you choose so).

Do you understand it?

[DuddlyDoRight]

Still vulnerable. To what I said last-post plus forced or automated voting.. Russia would love anonymous voting where nobody could validate voters including the voters.. Again all based on the -fact- you and the other guy denounced a public tally or ledger..

You're actually making voter fraud easier because you don't understand your own concept..

You dont understand my concept.

Voter validation in my system is irrelevant, because it's not the individual that is voting but the capital.

The more capital you have the more voting power, it's that simple. You can vote from many addresses, but 1 bitcoin only gets to vote once, since the output transactions are forbidden.

And thats it, the same coin cant vote twice, and you vote with as many coins you have. All transparent, and anonymous (if you choose so).

Do you understand it?

I understand you don't see how investment capital means nothing regarding the vulnerabilities I mentioned. You basically turned this in to a social-construct.. Have fun being right. Hell capital influence trumping net-citizen-input is retarded within itself for picking leaders or even just voting on some music index on a website..

Probably not if you're the revenue receiver and don't care about the integrity..

[RealBitcoin]

I understand you don't see how investment capital means nothing regarding the vulnerabilities I mentioned. You basically turned this in to a social-construct.. Have fun being right. Hell capital influence trumping net-citizen-input is retarded within itself for picking leaders or even just voting on some music index on a website..

Probably not if you're the revenue receiver and don't care about the integrity..

Well I see bitcoin as a business, and bitcoin owners as shareholders in this.

So it's obvious that the more bitcoins you hold, the more right you have over it, just like in a corporation.

It's nothing out of the ordinary, bitcoin is already a global social construct, not just a kindengarden toy money.

But the vote outcome is not binding, it's not a referendum, it's just an opinion poll, thats all.

[DuddlyDoRight]

I understand you don't see how investment capital means nothing regarding the vulnerabilities I mentioned. You basically turned this in to a social-construct.. Have fun being right. Hell capital influence trumping net-citizen-input is retarded within itself for picking leaders or even just voting on some music index on a website..

Probably not if you're the revenue receiver and don't care about the integrity..

Well I see bitcoin as a business, and bitcoin owners as shareholders in this.

So it's obvious that the more bitcoins you hold, the more right you have over it, just like in a corporation.

It's nothing out of the ordinary, bitcoin is already a global social construct, not just a kindengarden toy money.

But the vote outcome is not binding, it's not a referendum, it's just an opinion poll, thats all.

If your intention is to have a vote based on capital then this is fine, but what happens if I'm a russian or chinese oligarch with a leased or owned botnet and big capital already on the ledger and you want a vote that is democratic? ZeroCoin actually makes it easier for me to maintain dominance till the talley-time by obfuscating coins spent by me.

Yes if I'm you the owner of a influential poll or something this works in my favor though but has little to no integrity in it's results.

[RealBitcoin]

If your intention is to have a vote based on capital then this is fine, but what happens if I'm a russian or chinese oligarch with a leased or owned botnet and big capital already on the ledger and you want a vote that is democratic? ZeroCoin actually makes it easier for me to maintain dominance till the talley-time by obfuscating coins spent by me.

Yes if I'm you the owner of a influential poll or something this works in my favor though but has little to no integrity in it's results.

I already told you 3 times that the same coins cant be used to vote twice. Are you taking me for an idiot or you really dont read my posts?

No russian botnets wont disturb the voting procedure, and if you are an oligarch, you are an oligarch already.

[DuddlyDoRight]

If your intention is to have a vote based on capital then this is fine, but what happens if I'm a russian or chinese oligarch with a leased or owned botnet and big capital already on the ledger and you want a vote that is democratic? ZeroCoin actually makes it easier for me to maintain dominance till the talley-time by obfuscating coins spent by me.

Yes if I'm you the owner of a influential poll or something this works in my favor though but has little to no integrity in it's results.

I already told you 3 times that the same coins cant be used to vote twice. Are you taking me for an idiot or you really dont read my posts?

No russian botnets wont disturb the voting procedure, and if you are an oligarch, you are an oligarch already.

"the same coins cant be used to vote twice"..."you are an oligarch already"

What if I'm a mayor, governor, or president already?

Same coin? That has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. It's as if you don't know how bitcoin even works..

"No russian botnets wont disturb the voting procedure"
I can make automation for zero-coin(in fact I already pretty much already have as a tester) over the reference client why couldn't a building full of malware developers in Kursk, for example?

Again nothing you're posting has technical validity. It's just some social-construct you seem to be using to push your idea..

But feel free to put your idea online and we will see who is refusing to comprehend what.. -Who cares if it works I'll have short-term profit- just isn't going to cut it for a voting system I don't care how many technically illiterate startups try it..

EDIT: What's so annoying is that after the 'nazi' and 'uneducated' comments you basically describe a weak version of what I did. Your system does nothing but make one person money it has ----zero---- to do with vote security.. Double spending or double voting have nothing to do with that because you ---don't distribute identifying data--- the attacker needs neither of those to completely overthrow your system..

[RealBitcoin]

"the same coins cant be used to vote twice"..."you are an oligarch already"

What if I'm a mayor, governor, or president already?

Same coin? That has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. It's as if you don't know how bitcoin even works..

"No russian botnets wont disturb the voting procedure"
I can make automation for zero-coin(in fact I already pretty much already have as a tester) over the reference client why couldn't a building full of malware developers in Kursk, for example?

I dont understand what you are talking about, but the segwit will make 0 conf double spend hard from now on.

But feel free to put your idea online and we will see who is refusing to comprehend what.. -Who cares if it works I'll have short-term profit- just isn't going to cut it for a voting system I don't care how many technically illiterate startups try it..

Yes i put my idea out, and if its good it will be picked up, if not then not.

You have to try until you succeed, it doesnt work vice versa.

[funkenstein]

Voting has to be anonymous guys. I`m not sure why you are so uneducated about this.

If voting is not anonymous, then the majority party can just coerce and threaten people to vote for them, and when they get into power they will put the opposition members in gulags.

Therefore, voting has to remain anonymous, but still transparent, and bitcoin can offer both.

Exactly right here.  James D'Angelo has a great video about this in his bitcoin 101 series. 

[DuddlyDoRight]

Voting has to be anonymous guys. I`m not sure why you are so uneducated about this.

If voting is not anonymous, then the majority party can just coerce and threaten people to vote for them, and when they get into power they will put the opposition members in gulags.

Therefore, voting has to remain anonymous, but still transparent, and bitcoin can offer both.

Exactly right here.  James D'Angelo has a great video about this in his bitcoin 101 series.  

Who spends the most bitcoins and signs the most messages with freely&independently generated keys in a static time-frame isn't a voting system it's an auction..

Nothing suggested here prevents voter fraud and actually tries to profit off of it..

[RealBitcoin]

Who spends the most bitcoins and signs the most messages with freely&independently generated keys in a static time-frame isn't a voting system it's an auction..

Nothing suggested here prevents voter fraud and actually tries to profit off of it..

Yes its an auction because you vote with your money.

The money is voting, not you!

[DuddlyDoRight]

Who spends the most bitcoins and signs the most messages with freely&independently generated keys in a static time-frame isn't a voting system it's an auction..

Nothing suggested here prevents voter fraud and actually tries to profit off of it..

Yes its an auction because you vote with your money.

The money is voting, not you!

That's fine as long as it's not presented as some secure voting system meant to represent a democratic vote.

[Chris!]

I think this is actually a really good way of voting.

What would make sense is for an amount to be chosen, say BTC1.00 = 10 votes. On a certain undisclosed day, chosen by devs, anyone with BTC1.00 or more can vote for a certain amount of time (ie. 2 weeks)

So say someone had BTC1.50. They would get 15 votes whereas someone with BTC0.50 wouldn't get any votes. This way there would be no benefit to breaking up BTC100.00 if you had that many, and anyone with dust in their wallets doesn't get any.

[RealBitcoin]

Who spends the most bitcoins and signs the most messages with freely&independently generated keys in a static time-frame isn't a voting system it's an auction..

Nothing suggested here prevents voter fraud and actually tries to profit off of it..

Yes its an auction because you vote with your money.

The money is voting, not you!

That's fine as long as it's not presented as some secure voting system meant to represent a democratic vote.

Who said anything about democratic vote?

It's a capitalist voting system as it should reflect what bitcoin is: a corporation.

[RealBitcoin]

I think this is actually a really good way of voting.

What would make sense is for an amount to be chosen, say BTC1.00 = 10 votes. On a certain undisclosed day, chosen by devs, anyone with BTC1.00 or more can vote for a certain amount of time (ie. 2 weeks)

So say someone had BTC1.50. They would get 15 votes whereas someone with BTC0.50 wouldn't get any votes. This way there would be no benefit to breaking up BTC100.00 if you had that many, and anyone with dust in their wallets doesn't get any.

No actually the voting initiation can be done by anyone. But lets say the entry fee is 1 BTC which will be sent to a random miner, to prevent spam.

And then multiple votable issues can there be too.

And everyone who owns bitcoin can vote.

[funkenstein]

I think this is actually a really good way of voting.

What would make sense is for an amount to be chosen, say BTC1.00 = 10 votes. On a certain undisclosed day, chosen by devs, anyone with BTC1.00 or more can vote for a certain amount of time (ie. 2 weeks)

So say someone had BTC1.50. They would get 15 votes whereas someone with BTC0.50 wouldn't get any votes. This way there would be no benefit to breaking up BTC100.00 if you had that many, and anyone with dust in their wallets doesn't get any.

 

It seems to me that one satoshi - one vote is the only way this works.  In the situation you outline there is incentive to break up the 100btc, and no way to stop it because votes need to be anonymous (as somebody pointed out earlier).  And keep in mind you keep your money, only prove you have it not spend it - that's what makes this different from an auction.  

If you are interested please read this paper on the topic please, all comments appreciated:

http://vixra.org/pdf/1506.0163v1.pdf

[RealBitcoin]

I hope my system gets implemented one day in lightweight clients like electrum, and other web clients.

Imagine the possibility of voting with your bitcoin with only 1 click! It can be a great opinion system, and a great decision platform.

[RealBitcoin]

Looks like coinocracy has modernized their website:
http://bitcoinocracy.com/

However it would still be better if this feature would be available directly from the clients, optionally of course.

For example every major bitcoin wallet could integrate this into the wallet system, and make it disabled by default and those that want to vote to enable it in the options menu..

It would be a great step-up so that we can finally have a better consensus system.

[RealBitcoin]

It would be a great step-up so that we can finally have a better consensus system.

If a consensus is reached, why not?

It's hard to reach consensus if there is no platform to vote.

Ok the miners vote with hash power, the merchants announce publicly their goals, but how to you ask the millions of bitcoin users?


For that you need a voting system like this.

[shinep]

I think this is actually a really good way of voting.

What would make sense is for an amount to be chosen, say BTC1.00 = 10 votes. On a certain undisclosed day, chosen by devs, anyone with BTC1.00 or more can vote for a certain amount of time (ie. 2 weeks)

So say someone had BTC1.50. They would get 15 votes whereas someone with BTC0.50 wouldn't get any votes. This way there would be no benefit to breaking up BTC100.00 if you had that many, and anyone with dust in their wallets doesn't get any.

 

It seems to me that one satoshi - one vote is the only way this works.  In the situation you outline there is incentive to break up the 100btc, and no way to stop it because votes need to be anonymous (as somebody pointed out earlier).  And keep in mind you keep your money, only prove you have it not spend it - that's what makes this different from an auction.  

If you are interested please read this paper on the topic please, all comments appreciated:

http://vixra.org/pdf/1506.0163v1.pdf

Would the taint analysis fail if an exchange has casted one vote and as a user I withdraw some coins to my wallet and then try to cast a vote?

[RealBitcoin]

Would the taint analysis fail if an exchange has casted one vote and as a user I withdraw some coins to my wallet and then try to cast a vote?

I told you in my voting system, you cannot have output transactions from a voting address until the voting is finished.

To prevent double-voting the same coins.

[shinep]

Would the taint analysis fail if an exchange has casted one vote and as a user I withdraw some coins to my wallet and then try to cast a vote?

I told you in my voting system, you cannot have output transactions from a voting address until the voting is finished.

To prevent double-voting the same coins.

I was commenting on the pdf.
I understand your proposal.But tying the BTC in your account for the duration of the voting process may not be well recieved.
Is it possible to invalidate my vote and make outgoing transactions in case of an emergency?

[RealBitcoin]

I was commenting on the pdf.
I understand your proposal.But tying the BTC in your account for the duration of the voting process may not be well recieved.

Well unfortunately thats the only way to make sure no double-voting the same coins happen.

Is it possible to invalidate my vote and make outgoing transactions in case of an emergency?

Yes.

[RealBitcoin]

I would like to review this thought, and maybe somebody can pick it up as a formal project.

It could have big success if done correctly, and it can be beneficial for the community so that we can finally have a transparent formal discussion about bitcoin and it's future.

[Willemveen]

Seems good!

[Monnt]

This would make bitcoin a pump and dump. You see, this gives rich people an incentive to hoard bitcoin. Theyll buy up as much bitcoin as possible to get a huge amount of voting power, make an unstable change, then sell everything. *Shudders*

I was commenting on the pdf.
I understand your proposal.But tying the BTC in your account for the duration of the voting process may not be well recieved.

Well unfortunately thats the only way to make sure no double-voting the same coins happen.
emergency?

Yes.
[/quote]


What about a period of 7 days to set your vote, and on a certain block, everyone gets their vote counted. Or maybe votes are only valid if the coins have stayed in their wallet for more than X days

[RealBitcoin]

This would make bitcoin a pump and dump. You see, this gives rich people an incentive to hoard bitcoin. Theyll buy up as much bitcoin as possible to get a huge amount of voting power, make an unstable change, then sell everything. *Shudders*

Thats not how it works, change cant be made that easily.

Besides why would they destroy bitcoin when they can make huge profits on it during the course of their entire lifetime.

Even the most greedy person can see that bitcoin is a long term money tree, that you dont want to cut out.

What about a period of 7 days to set your vote, and on a certain block, everyone gets their vote counted. Or maybe votes are only valid if the coins have stayed in their wallet for more than X days

Sure, the details can be debated, but i just put forward the idea.

Yes the votes are only valid if you didnt made output transactions in the meantime, since otherwise you can just vote infinite amounts with the same coin.

[funkenstein]

I was commenting on the pdf.
I understand your proposal.But tying the BTC in your account for the duration of the voting process may not be well recieved.

Well unfortunately thats the only way to make sure no double-voting the same coins happen.

Nope!  Actually it is easy to confirm that no incoming vote signature corresponds to an output of existing coin-vote signatures.  The concept is sometimes referred to as "taint"..  any vote which is a signature corresponding to coin tainted by earlier coin-vote signatures is thrown out.  

There is no need to send coin or hold coin when voting.  Simply sign a statement with a key that holds coin (which isn't been linked to previous votes). 

Is it possible to invalidate my vote and make outgoing transactions in case of an emergency?

Yes.

No a proper coin-vote does not enable any cancelling of votes.  This is because you can't "unsign" a document.  Once you publish a signature, it remains published.  In theory you could publish another signature voting the other way but that would be rejected as a double-vote.

http://frass.woodcoin.org/introducing-coin-vote/

[RealBitcoin]

Nope!  Actually it is easy to confirm that no incoming vote signature corresponds to an output of existing coin-vote signatures.  The concept is sometimes referred to as "taint"..  any vote which is a signature corresponding to coin tainted by earlier coin-vote signatures is thrown out.  

There is no need to send coin or hold coin when voting.  Simply sign a statement with a key that holds coin (which isn't been linked to previous votes). 

Yea and you want to analyze all addresses and all addresses corespondingto all addresses.

That is just way too hard and requires supercomputers, my proposition is easy to implement, and it only requires people to give up using their coins for say 1 week.

If they really want to vote, such small sacrifice is not a big deal.

[funkenstein]

Nope!  Actually it is easy to confirm that no incoming vote signature corresponds to an output of existing coin-vote signatures.  The concept is sometimes referred to as "taint"..  any vote which is a signature corresponding to coin tainted by earlier coin-vote signatures is thrown out.  

There is no need to send coin or hold coin when voting.  Simply sign a statement with a key that holds coin (which isn't been linked to previous votes). 

Yea and you want to analyze all addresses and all addresses corespondingto all addresses.

That is just way too hard and requires supercomputers, my proposition is easy to implement, and it only requires people to give up using their coins for say 1 week.

If they really want to vote, such small sacrifice is not a big deal.

 

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? 

[RealBitcoin]

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? 

What if the two addresses had contact before, can the taint analysis have a timeframe?

Also you have to test each voter against  the entire voting pool, and to conserve resources, let's just assume that the testing only happens after the voting ended.

So you have to test each address against all other, and if they had any taint in that specific timeperiod, then remove both of them from the eligible voters . When it's filtered out, then the remaining votes can be counted.

[funkenstein]

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?  

What if the two addresses had contact before, can the taint analysis have a timeframe?,

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.     

Also you have to test each voter against  the entire voting pool, and to conserve resources, let's just assume that the testing only happens after the voting ended.

So you have to test each address against all other, and if they had any taint in that specific timeperiod, then remove both of them from the eligible voters . When it's filtered out, then the remaining votes can be counted.

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!    

[RealBitcoin]

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.     

Hold on a second I`m not sure we are on the same page. It's not the person that votes, but the coin. So it doesnt matter who owns which coin.

If you have 100 addresses, each having 1 btc, you can vote 100 times, but only 1 time with each address.

So 1 coin can only be counted once.

Now I`m not sure how you do that because if you allow a person to still send out money from that address, it will be difficult, because then he will just swap the coins with somebody else that didnt voted.

So you have address A with 2 bitcoin, you vote with 1 bitcoin, and keep 1 bitcoin. Then you swap the 1 bitcoin that voted with a  stranger, offchain, and vote again. Then swap again ,and vote again...

That would be silly.


So it's not the person that votes, not even the coin, but rather the address (and it's full balance) is voting. Also you still have to forbit outgoing TX from that address until the voting is over.


If you have 100 bitcoin but only you want to vote with 50, and use the other 50 for your personal spending, then you just send the voting 50 to another address and wont be moved until voting is over.

[etparle]

Don't a lot of alt coins implement a voting system, can't something like that be used for voting with Bitcoin?

[funkenstein]

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.     

Hold on a second I`m not sure we are on the same page. It's not the person that votes, but the coin. So it doesnt matter who owns which coin.

If you have 100 addresses, each having 1 btc, you can vote 100 times, but only 1 time with each address.

So 1 coin can only be counted once.

Now I`m not sure how you do that because if you allow a person to still send out money from that address, it will be difficult, because then he will just swap the coins with somebody else that didnt voted.

So you have address A with 2 bitcoin, you vote with 1 bitcoin, and keep 1 bitcoin. Then you swap the 1 bitcoin that voted with a  stranger, offchain, and vote again. Then swap again ,and vote again...

That would be silly.


So it's not the person that votes, not even the coin, but rather the address (and it's full balance) is voting. Also you still have to forbit outgoing TX from that address until the voting is over.


If you have 100 bitcoin but only you want to vote with 50, and use the other 50 for your personal spending, then you just send the voting 50 to another address and wont be moved until voting is over.

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.  








 

[RealBitcoin]

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.  

So now he cant send bitcoins to another address and vote? By swapping?

I send you bitcoin A, you send me bitcoin B, I vote with A and B (but i would only have 1 btc power, but i cheat to gain 2). Bitcoins are not fungible, so even if the address is not tainted it can still be double-voted.

If you want to make sure that absolutely not vote-cheating happens ,then you have to filter out addresses that had outgoing TX.

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.  

There is not "forbidding" it's only that once you had a outgoing TX, your vote becomes invalid. You can vote again but but if you spend again then the TX is invalid again.

You dont need to check every time, the checking only happens after the timer runs out.

You should not have any outgoing TX during the voting process. If you cant handle locking your coin away for say 1 week, you can vote in the last hour before the timer runs out.

It is very simple and it makes 100% sure no cheating happens.

[funkenstein]

There is not "forbidding" it's only that once you had a outgoing TX, your vote becomes invalid. You can vote again but but if you spend again then the TX is invalid again.

You dont need to check every time, the checking only happens after the timer runs out.

You should not have any outgoing TX during the voting process. If you cant handle locking your coin away for say 1 week, you can vote in the last hour before the timer runs out.

It is very simple and it makes 100% sure no cheating happens.

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.  

[RealBitcoin]

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. 

You still dont understand the fungiblility problem.

Jonny has 1 Bitcoin = 1 BTC voting power  he votes yes on Brexit = 50%

Eve has 1 Bitcoin = 1 BTC voting power she votes no on Brexit. = 50%



Eve is smart so she votes, then swaps her BTC with Charlie and Charlie is not interested to vote again. She got a new BTC she votes again.
She then swaps the BTC again with Jimmy, and again Jimmy wont vote again.

Now Eve has only 1 BTC the whole time but she has voted 3 times with fresh coin.

Therefore the vote will end in 75% NO and 25% YES, because Eve cheated. It can be prevented if Jimmy and Charlie votes too, but not all people will vote all the time, so this kind of cheat will be very frequent in your system.

[funkenstein]

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. 

You still dont understand the fungiblility problem.

Jonny has 1 Bitcoin = 1 BTC voting power  he votes yes on Brexit = 50%

Eve has 1 Bitcoin = 1 BTC voting power she votes no on Brexit. = 50%



Eve is smart so she votes, then swaps her BTC with Charlie and Charlie is not interested to vote again. She got a new BTC she votes again.
She then swaps the BTC again with Jimmy, and again Jimmy wont vote again.

Now Eve has only 1 BTC the whole time but she has voted 3 times with fresh coin.

Therefore the vote will end in 75% NO and 25% YES, because Eve cheated. It can be prevented if Jimmy and Charlie votes too, but not all people will vote all the time, so this kind of cheat will be very frequent in your system.

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 --    
  
  

[RealBitcoin]

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. 

You still dont understand the fungiblility problem.

Jonny has 1 Bitcoin = 1 BTC voting power  he votes yes on Brexit = 50%

Eve has 1 Bitcoin = 1 BTC voting power she votes no on Brexit. = 50%



Eve is smart so she votes, then swaps her BTC with Charlie and Charlie is not interested to vote again. She got a new BTC she votes again.
She then swaps the BTC again with Jimmy, and again Jimmy wont vote again.

Now Eve has only 1 BTC the whole time but she has voted 3 times with fresh coin.

Therefore the vote will end in 75% NO and 25% YES, because Eve cheated. It can be prevented if Jimmy and Charlie votes too, but not all people will vote all the time, so this kind of cheat will be very frequent in your system.

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. 

Yes, the first one is just swapping coins, the second on is bribery.

Well both are dishonest, at least the coin swapping one can be filtered out by my proposal of not letting outgoing TX.

As for bribing Charlie, I dont think that would work, why would Charlie sell his vote?

If i had 100,000 BTC why would I lease out that voting power when I can just use that power to vote for my benefit. It would make no sense.

It's like if you had an army, and you would lease that army to your ally so that he can conquer an island. When you can just take the island yourself for yourself with your army.

It would make sense for smaller sums, but those guys dont have much voting power anyway.

If the 100,000 BTC i would have can give me enough power to influence the community, i would definitely not lease it out and use it my own.

[funkenstein]

Yes, the first one is just swapping coins, the second on is bribery.

Well both are dishonest, at least the coin swapping one can be filtered out by my proposal of not letting outgoing TX.

As for bribing Charlie, I dont think that would work, why would Charlie sell his vote?

If i had 100,000 BTC why would I lease out that voting power when I can just use that power to vote for my benefit. It would make no sense.

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

It's like if you had an army, and you would lease that army to your ally so that he can conquer an island. When you can just take the island yourself for yourself with your army.

It would make sense for smaller sums, but those guys dont have much voting power anyway.

If the 100,000 BTC i would have can give me enough power to influence the community, i would definitely not lease it out and use it my own.

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? 

[RealBitcoin]

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

Charlie doesnt have to know the purpose in the swapping case, but he will have to know in the bribery case.

If the swapping happens, it might just be an altcoin trade  BTC->LTC->BTC,  you dont even know Charlie, it just happens in an exchange or somewhere.


But if you were to bribe Charlie, then he will know what is going on and he will just rather vote on his own. Besides he doesnt want his coins become tainted to such dishonest things. Why would Charlie risk his reputation for this?

So bottom line, when the information is present, people react differently then when they dont know it.

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? 

He doesnt have to care, but he might care if you beg him to use his coins.

When the demand for his coins rises, he might charge you huge fees to use his coins, and then the whole thing will just become inneficient.

If he wants 1 BTC to use his BTC, then it will not be worth to bribe Charlie, because you just rather use that 1 extra BTC to vote for yourself.


So the bribe always has to be smaller than the voting power bought. If there are little coins to be swapped (because Charlie also has to denounce the usage of his coins for the voting period, which might be unconfortable), then the bribery fees go up.

So if 1 shady person stands there with 1000 BTC ready to provide for the cheaters, then he will rather just invest that in some other venture than to play this silly game, or he will just vote himself.

So if the bribery fee is too high, then it wont happen. If it's too low, then there wont be any available coins to use.


So I dont think bribery will happen that often to destabilize this voting mechanism

[RealBitcoin]

How about a specific example of a coin-vote you have in mind? 

I will update the OP thread, because i wrote it a long time ago, and i have different ideas and specifications since then.

I didnt explained it very well in the first post, and it was very vague, i will be more specific and update the OP soon!

[FreeTrade]

You might be interested in Nutocracy, which is a fork of Bitcoinocracy, but we only let HOdlers vote.

[RealBitcoin]

I`ll lock this thread until i rewrite the OP to my new ideas and improvements, right now i`m too busy to do it.