5 ms·

Yeah but it's anonymous / via bitcoin, no one could stop you from doing a 1000 'small' donations under a 1000 different identities, yet you control them all?

• hashkb 10y ago
  Damn. Of course you're right. And it could all be automated, transparent to you, the cheater.
  • evan_ 10y ago
    Maybe they could charge a small per-share voting fee which would be destroyed (or used in some clever, non-game-able way). I could even imagine automatically refunding the fee for those casting losing votes to avoid wars of attrition... I guess that's essentially an auction.
    • jbpetersen 10y ago
      Wouldn't work, people could group together and remain anonymous.
    • maxander 10y ago
      I suspect that if N honest backers would expect a net gain from a decision even if they spend X/N voting for it, a single owner of N fake accounts would expect a net gain from the same decision even if he spent X voting for it. Anonymity on the internet pretty much inherently means that you can't tell how many actual individuals a given set of apparent individuals really are. You can tell how much money they have (or CPU power, bandwidth, or various other proxies for wealth), but that's about it. I don't see how this wouldn't be an inherent problem for any cryptocurrency (or crypto-whathaveyou-system) attempting to force decentralization (see; the primary actors in Bitcoin split war.)