What would be the fairest way for votings ?

[User365]

I think voting by coins is more or less unfair and nowhere a democratic system. Your vote is affected by your wealth.

Voting by address is more or less complete stupid, because you can generate as much as you like.

Voting by hashpower is centralized.

Voting per full node? Can this be implemented, or can this be manipulated ? (I know you can add a comment which your node is brodcasting, but that´s not really voting)

Is there any other way how we could realize a democratic system for the votings? (f.e. per id like political votes in democratic systems, without revealing your id ?)

[Kogan22]

I think voting by coins is more or less unfair and nowhere a democratic system. Your vote is affected by your wealth.

Voting by address is more or less complete stupid, because you can generate as much as you like.

Voting by hashpower is centralized.

Voting per full node? Can this be implemented, or can this be manipulated ? (I know you can add a comment which your node is brodcasting, but that´s not really voting)

Is there any other way how we could realize a democratic system for the votings? (f.e. per id like political votes in democratic systems, without revealing your id ?)

You mean voting in politics?

In this case all people eligible to vote should be at least familiar and have understanding of the system. I don't believe this is possible at all within our lifetime at least.
Another side of the coin is, that i don't believe that any political system wants to really have that kind of voting system, which can not be manipulated.

Though it would be a nice idea to implement a system like that for some general polls around the net to make them popular and unstoppable if they really become safe and useful.

[krishnapramod]

I think voting by coins is more or less unfair and nowhere a democratic system. Your vote is affected by your wealth.

Voting by address is more or less complete stupid, because you can generate as much as you like.

Voting by hashpower is centralized.

Voting per full node? Can this be implemented, or can this be manipulated ? (I know you can add a comment which your node is brodcasting, but that´s not really voting)

Is there any other way how we could realize a democratic system for the votings? (f.e. per id like political votes in democratic systems, without revealing your id ?)

Voting by wealth is plutocracy, a smaller version of aristocracy.

Voting by hash power is meritocracy, need merit or it is just a  forced sub division of plutocracy.

Democracy has a simple explanation, by the people, for the people, to the people, simplest form, but gets complicated when governments interfere.

PoW to PoS to PoA, guess its possible to change the algorithm to proof-of-activity, never good at technicalities.

Voting is just an illusion, end product is always dependent on how an user prefers to use it, economic majority.

[HabBear]

I think voting by coins is more or less unfair and nowhere a democratic system. Your vote is affected by your wealth.

Voting by address is more or less complete stupid, because you can generate as much as you like.

Voting by hashpower is centralized.

Voting per full node? Can this be implemented, or can this be manipulated ? (I know you can add a comment which your node is brodcasting, but that´s not really voting)

Is there any other way how we could realize a democratic system for the votings? (f.e. per id like political votes in democratic systems, without revealing your id ?)

Voting by coins doesn't exist. Voting by node is how it works...and you don't need have wealth or any Bitcoin to download and run a node.

I'll concede that large miners clearly have a lot of nodes, and that costs money, but they still aren't getting "votes" to hardfork or whatever based on the amount of bitcoin they own. There's no direct causal relationship.

Bitcoin is not a democracy, it's a Republic. Meaning those that are most involved get a vote. If you want more of a voice, download a node, get involved in mining, that will give you your voice.

And actually, the loudest voice is one of denial by simply selling all of your bitcoin and abandoning the entire system. Don't discount this option if you're truly unhappy with how Bitcoin is going.

[Novun]

Voting is generally fine. The issue is that everyone has only 1 vote. If everyone had more votes the result of the election would make more sense.
This is a good resource on this topic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8XOZJkozfI
The point is to have more votes or have a list of preferences rather than just voting for one party/politician/anything. This would make all elections fairer.

[MadGamer]

A lot of what you mentioned can be manipulated or result into having one person with multiple votes. The coin voting look like the most convenient option to me but that could mean centralization as well, someone could simply buy a lot of bitcoins and vote in order to push a specific code change for example. Back to mining, It's probably the best option but not too many people are being involved currently which again, gives us the centralization as you said.

[ZeroTheGreat]

Libertarian way: we are the people establish and hold accountable limited government to tie specific voting public key to each person providing that person with private key to use at whim for signing vote of any kind at any square. And better: to just such each person who served us the people good enough, weighted voting with more meaningful criterias than absolute wealth

Specifics including on which blockchain voting takes place can vary. Ofc, instead of limited government it can be private business. So all the votes in both cases can be counted and checked against individuals (if they allow trusted pwrty to publish their public keys into checking tool). Would u think about the idea?

[Red-Apple]

the problem will always be the anonymity.
all these methods mentioned so far have flaws and any method regarding users voting will have its own problems too. nobody is willing to reveal their identity and that can easily mean someone voting a million times pretending to be a new person. be it with nodes or amount you hold, per IP, or any other thing.

in other words a fair voting method can only be found in a perfect world not in our world.

[ZeroTheGreat]

nobody is willing to reveal their identity

If we don't live in the woods, identification pops up a lot. Question: who to trust with your data, and for orderly society there have to be someone or group to trust

[hatshepsut93]

I think voting by coins is more or less unfair and nowhere a democratic system. Your vote is affected by your wealth.

Voting by address is more or less complete stupid, because you can generate as much as you like.

Voting by hashpower is centralized.

Voting per full node? Can this be implemented, or can this be manipulated ? (I know you can add a comment which your node is brodcasting, but that´s not really voting)

Is there any other way how we could realize a democratic system for the votings? (f.e. per id like political votes in democratic systems, without revealing your id ?)

It's impossible to have a perfect voting system, because voting itself is imperfect - losers are always going to be unsatisfied. In democratic systems it will be the minority, in plutocratic systems it will be the poor. So, it all comes to your understanding of fairness. I think voting by coins is the most fair, because big holders risk more, and it would be unfair if some people who have a few satoshis have the same power as people who took multi-million risks.

[Red-Apple]

nobody is willing to reveal their identity

If we don't live in the woods, identification pops up a lot. Question: who to trust with your data, and for orderly society there have to be someone or group to trust

i am talking in the context of voting using bitcoin, blockchain technology and such. and in that area nobody reveals their identity and you have no way of proving that 1BTCAddress1 and 1BTCAddress2 both belong to me and i can distribute my balance over multiple addresses and become multiple votes.
or the same with nodes. i can run multiple nodes on an Amazon server and become multiple votes, ...

[AiWanChu]

voting with your wallet is the best way

[audaciousbeing]

I think voting by coins is more or less unfair and nowhere a democratic system. Your vote is affected by your wealth.

Voting by address is more or less complete stupid, because you can generate as much as you like.

Voting by hashpower is centralized.

Voting per full node? Can this be implemented, or can this be manipulated ? (I know you can add a comment which your node is brodcasting, but that´s not really voting)

Is there any other way how we could realize a democratic system for the votings? (f.e. per id like political votes in democratic systems, without revealing your id ?)

What I see here is that Democracy is overrated and even not a perfect way of getting the summation of ideas of people over a particular course of action because there is no generally accepted parameter to determine which one is the best. Even in real life when we have to choose our leaders the real people who make the decisions for us are not the populace like they make us believe rather the moguls and cabals and it wont be any different in matters relating to crypto-currency.

[Kprawn]

You vote with your money. The more money you invest in full nodes, the more say you will have. If the coins hard fork, then you vote with your

money by investing in the coin that you think, might take the crown. The merchants and service providers will follow the money and the miners

will follow the fees. {where most tx's are made... or most popular coin} 

[ZeroTheGreat]

i am talking in the context of voting using bitcoin

Node signals and voting by market txs. What else?

[iamTom123]

You must be referring to voting as to what can be the best solutions that should be implemented for the scaling problem of Bitcoin. Had I wish that there can already be a framework for that as the voices of small Bitcoin holders are always not taken into consideration today. Small holders like you and me are not given any weight at all. It is as if we are not that important in the decision making process and there seems to be no one who is representing our small voices in many conferences and meetings. As for me, voting should be based on a per person basis and not based on how much Bitcoin one can be holding...this is to put more democracy into the process. However, I know that Bitcoin is not a democracy but nothing wrong to dream that soon it can be.

[Amph]

i think there is no way to prevent fake voting or preventing centralization if you are aiming for that, even with node, i can have two node runnign and my vote become 2x, or i could hack some bitcoin in the world an dmake them full node and vote with that, and will be centralizzed anyway

i was thinking about voting with signed address...but it might no be good either

You vote with your money. The more money you invest in full nodes, the more say you will have. If the coins hard fork, then you vote with your

money by investing in the coin that you think, might take the crown. The merchants and service providers will follow the money and the miners

will follow the fees. {where most tx's are made... or most popular coin} 

this is another centralized way to vote, and it's not different than pos for example, where who have the biggest balance win

[dothebeats]

Voting in any means at a decentralized network like bitcoin is kinda pointless, as the hashing power would be the basis for the votes and we all know that mining is a centralized part of the network, thus any result in the voting process that used hashing power is lacking integrity. Facebook votes or other online voting scheme would also be a wasted effort as well. Voting by full nodes? That wouldn't represent a large part of the bitcoin community.