'Vote with your bitcoins' voting system

[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?