Bitcoin Forum
July 18, 2018, 11:40:02 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.16.1  [Torrent]. (New!)
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Generalizing bitcoin to improve democratic process?  (Read 928 times)
Full Member
Offline Offline

Activity: 178
Merit: 100

View Profile
June 12, 2011, 07:53:51 PM

I know that there is a topic on generalization of bitcoin already but this is much more broad.
I've posted this elsewhere but I think it is important that developers read this.
So, here goes:

It is true that each jurisdiction does have different legal definitions and requirements. But Bitcoins are so new they almost need a new way of refering to them and a new legal definition.

Could we come to some sort of agreement here as a community of what bitcoins are and how they should legally be treated, and then go to our individual jurisdiction governments and make them all adopt a common legal treatment? It would require alot of work, but I think the future would thank us. It may be like herding cats, though, I do not have much faith in us coming to a common definition.

I've been thinking about this lately. A much better thing would be if we could build a totally new and independent "distributed governing body"/"direct democracy" functioning on similar principles as bitcoin (being p2p/decentralized, based on "proof of work" - or "peer vouching" term could be more appropriate in this case) or being a part of bitcoin infrastructure.

What I mean is that besides monetary transactions' information floating inside bitcoin network we could also have a sort of identity information, polls/votes information etc.

For example, suppose you want to establish an identity for yourself (which can consist of arbitrary credentials/id-elements like your name, address, ebay-like feedback etc). So you "declare" the specific credentials and then ask people who can confirm them to vouch for you. The more people vouched for your credentials the more "trusted" those credentials are, obviously. (think of number of confirmations for btc transactions)

The identity elements should be stored in encrypted form on the network but should be verifiable via asymmetric encryption. So if someone initiated a vote (see below) for residents of Southpark only those who have an identity with confirmed "city" element which is "Southpart" should be able to cast votes.

Then anyone who has any kind of identity can initiate any kind of vote on anything ("Shall we consider bitcoin legal money", "Is it OK to build a nuclear plant in Southpark?" etc.), specify it's parameters like "only Southpark residents can vote - those with 20+ confirmations of residency in Southpark", only members with 50 confirmations of their name (but names are not revealed) can vote etc.

The enforcement of the votes etc. might be difficult at first but if/when massive amounts of people will vote for something it will become easier.

Interesting side effects/advantages:
You can choose any name you want as long as enough people agree to call you that Smiley You can even have no name if you are not interested in participating in processes (votes etc.) that require it.
This system would not depend on existing political constructs/notions/establishments. (countries/citizenships etc.) Rather that that people will group (by participating in certain processes/votes) by all kinds of criteria.
No need for representative democracy anymore. Cast your votes directly Smiley Same goes for other institutions like courts of law etc. Do not want to participate directly in certain matters or do not feel competent enough? Delegate your vote (on specific matters) to someone. Became unhappy how they use your delegated voice? Revoke it immediately!

Problems to be resolved:
1. How to motivate people to distribute this information? Bitcoin transaction distribution is sustained by mining, but what about non-monetary information? Shall we pay "miners" a "transaction fee" for it?
2. We need a way to deal with identity theft/loss (think of an identity as a wallet). Perhaps rules for some kind of restoration process should be established (through the same "vouching" process described above).
3. The math behind this might be probably even more robust then bitcoin's.
4. What to do with multiple identities? Perhaps we should just let them be (it would be more difficult to get it's elements confirmed anyway), or this should be resolved via a vote at some point.
5. What else did not I think of?
The World's Betting Exchange

Bet with play money. Win real Bitcoin. 5BTC Prize Fund for World Cup 2018.

Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
Hero Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 1531914003

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Reply with quote  #2

Report to moderator
Offline Offline

Activity: 98
Merit: 10

View Profile
June 13, 2011, 07:33:23 AM

Expect us.

There's a few things in that sense afoot, but they do not require having a worldwide LAN party. Bitcoin exists as it does because finances involve math. Don't presume the theatre of action is part of the premise of the action.

Means: Code, donations, and brutal criticism. I've got a thick skin. 1Gc3xCHAzwvTDnyMW3evBBr5qNRDN3DRpq
Hero Member
Offline Offline

Activity: 770
Merit: 552


View Profile WWW
June 14, 2011, 01:19:18 AM

I am sorry, but a block chain verified vote is just as illegitimate as any other vote. 

Bitcoin already implements the best democratic process, free trade with market forces providing the demand that generates the services (roads, utilities, security, schools) that people need.

Plus it has been proven that without a 'central authority' it is impossible for a P2P network to prove nodes as 'unique'.  Google the Sybil attack.  Blogging is the new Mining
Sr. Member
Offline Offline

Activity: 322
Merit: 250

View Profile
June 14, 2011, 03:42:33 AM

I think instead of block chains for voting, we should twist together beautiful clovers and daisies.  I'm certain we could get hundreds of millions of people signed up for this idea, I mean heck, nearly 25% of eligible voters vote already by enduring the complicated action of pulling a lever!  SOME districts have even done away with paper ballots ENTIRELY!

Be fearful when others are greedy, and greedy when others are fearful.

-Warren Buffett
Pages: [1]
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!