Even if we imagined that the problem of verifying identity has been successfully and fully solved, I would still argue that using amount of people to determine consensus, aka direct democracy, is still a bad idea. People should be equal in rights, but they are not equal in many other qualities, and majority of people can easily be wrong, and it happened many times in history when people elected shitty leaders. Bitcoin's PoW consensus puts something at stake, which ensures that even those who wield 51% wouldn't cheat if they behave rationally, but in democracy this risk is not personal, everyone puts all other people at stake, which turns out to be a worse deterrent than individual responsibility.
It seems like a poor analogy from the OP. A 51% attack is
an attack. It's not a mechanism for governance. It's a possible attack vector that is a byproduct of Bitcoin's security model.
Bitcoin was purposefully designed to thwart any sort of majority governance. If you want to opt into the network, you first need to agree to the existing consensus rules.
We verify using fingerprints, id, iris scan, (another 30 different ways) using file sharing.
Why would you want to upload your biometric and KYC data onto the internet? Aren't you concerned about the risks of identity theft? The cost vs. benefit doesn't seem worth it.
They are already on the internet, The benefits heavily out weigh the cons. The only people concerned are criminals.
the cost: giving up some personal information that is already given up to the hospital at birth.
Ah, so that's your position. "Privacy is only desired by criminals." We'll have to agree to disagree.
And no, my biometric data is not already on the internet. I intend to keep it that way. You seem to be confused about the information recorded at birth.
