3 ms·
Depends how you want to reach consensus. For instance, if you're going for one-person-one-vote, then yeah, that's gonna be subject to Sybil attacks without iden
by witten 11y ago
Depends how you want to reach consensus. For instance, if you're going for one-person-one-vote, then yeah, that's gonna be subject to Sybil attacks without identity. But if instead you settle for plutocracy, then you can just use something like proof of burn to tally votes.
- TD-Linux 11y agoSomeone actually created something like that using proof-of-stake (proof of controlling Bitcoins): http://bitcoinocracy.com/ http://bitcoinocracy.com/
- nullc 11y agoAnd the interesting thing about it is that it generally comes out overwhelmingly opposed to these incompatible system rule changes: http://bitcoinocracy.com/arguments/if-non-core-hard-fork-wins-major-holders-will-sell-btc-driving-price-into-the-ground http://bitcoinocracy.com/arguments/if-non-core-hard-fork-win... (the oppose side of that was up to about 4500 BTC at peak but the party providing those coins has since moved them). It's hard to say what it means; I know a lot of people around Bitcoin Core whom won't use it because of the privacy problems with it-- in particular, people on the Bitcoin XT subreddit were previously threatening to retaliate by dishonoring the funds of people that didn't agree with them. But I do think it's quite interesting that opinions seem to swing 179 degree when you switch between very sockpuppetry vulnerable venues and ones which are not.