Why should a bigger stake mean a bigger say?

[decentralization_preacher]

Hey friends,

It's 2026 and most of you are gone but I still have this lingering question in my mind, although not many of you care for decentralization anymore.

I don’t think having more money should automatically give someone more control over a blockchain, I really think this not the right direction we are taking as industry. It doesn't lead to any form of proper decentralization at all and I think undermines the whole point of blockchain as a whole.

In a stake-weighted system, you can increase your influence by acquiring and staking more tokens. I understand the reasoning: you’re putting more capital at risk. But I don’t think that settles whether wealth should determine how much say someone gets, especially in DAO and governance.

This is a big part of what interests me about the work we’re doing at Humanode.

We use Proof of Biometric Uniqueness, or PoBU. It uses private biometric checks for liveness and uniqueness, with the aim of giving each real person one validator with equal weight. Buying more HMND doesn’t increase your validator weight.

You still have to get the verification right, and people can still coordinate with each other. There’s a paper on PoBU that goes into those questions: https://papers.humanode.io/pobu.pdf

For me, equal weight per person is a direction worth pursuing. We already have plenty of systems where money decides who gets heard, what about proper egalitarian systems? Fundamental don't interest a lot of people these days, and it's sad ;(.

Do you think putting more capital at risk should give someone more validator power? Why? Why not?

[yoshikiazuma]

I like bitcoin pc computer consensus designs goals because it puts power behind the right hands and bitcoin simulates the scarcity level of real gold

Soon as ASIC ran the monopoly show of who gets to have power it's now looking at itself to get destroyed by the consumption of the total global electricity which has been draining energy resources putting the climate and the world at risk of evaporating electric at a faster rate

Once that electricity poverty hits there won't be nothing to sustain the power and price of bitcoin ASIC

It will become and known as the destruction of the world and stability

When everything gets destabilised because of the effects of running out of electricity not like those meme coins which laugh about running out of water crisis

BTC ASIC coin looks to become a meme coins in a centuries time

Where future people are already laughing at this as a meme " electric coin" running out of electricity and time"

Haha

(:

The time it took for the world to create electricity resources outweigh the consumption of these greeds and disorders

The ASICS are out weighing the original balance of the bitcoins true metric consensus goals of running on basic computer CPU or GPU

As long as these ASIC machines are running continuously without stopping and thinking like a human

You will see what I mean maybe not now until the future if this greed for power hungry machines continues

Hehe

Do you like my little story telling of my personal opinions and predictions

Let's wait till they realise why satoshi stopped working with bitcoins on his/her official account on bitcointalk

But if satoshi does decide to use his/her official account and contact me then that's a suprise for you people not me

Because I know the score, he/she is not likely to make statements on behalf of anyone

[yoshikiazuma]

Everything will come tumbling down

You can't build towers beyond the ozone layer

Or this neat idea of building some sort of towers could be a neat idea for 'the next wheel' like invention

But it's not going to ever work now I guess and at the current rate of the progress of the world hehe

I'm not so popular haha no status no data because electronics are an illusion

Something similar to that meme 'magic internet money' haha

Don't get me wrong or the idea of me because I made a fair just opinions doesn't make me the bad guy as a heads up '

I don't operate under any rules I like what are structurally viable and fair as a sense

Yours sincerely

A real person haha

[IShishkin]

Hey friends,

It's 2026 and most of you are gone but I still have this lingering question in my mind, although not many of you care for decentralization anymore.

I don’t think having more money should automatically give someone more control over a blockchain, I really think this not the right direction we are taking as industry. It doesn't lead to any form of proper decentralization at all and I think undermines the whole point of blockchain as a whole.

In a stake-weighted system, you can increase your influence by acquiring and staking more tokens. I understand the reasoning: you’re putting more capital at risk. But I don’t think that settles whether wealth should determine how much say someone gets, especially in DAO and governance.

What is "decentralisation" from your perspective?

This is a big part of what interests me about the work we’re doing at Humanode.

We use Proof of Biometric Uniqueness, or PoBU. It uses private biometric checks for liveness and uniqueness, with the aim of giving each real person one validator with equal weight. Buying more HMND doesn’t increase your validator weight.

You still have to get the verification right, and people can still coordinate with each other. There’s a paper on PoBU that goes into those questions: https://papers.humanode.io/pobu.pdf

For me, equal weight per person is a direction worth pursuing. We already have plenty of systems where money decides who gets heard, what about proper egalitarian systems? Fundamental don't interest a lot of people these days, and it's sad ;(.

Do you think putting more capital at risk should give someone more validator power? Why? Why not?

For as little as 1 BTC "appointed set of unbiased annonimous validators" can tell you how much "validator power" you should have in some network based on your "Biometric Uniqueness".

Disclaimer. I don't guarantee that you will achieve that "validator power" or whatever that means. That is something you will have to achieve on your own given your "Biometric Uniqueness". The mission of "appointed by me set of unbiased validators" is to give you a confidence that you are the chosen one and deserves that "validator power" or whatever that means.

Would you put 1 BTC of your own capital at risk for a promise of "validation power based on Biometric Uniqueness"? Why? Why not?