3 ms·

> "one coin, one vote." who has the gold makes the rules.

csense 4y ago
Suppose we all agree that "One citizen, one vote" is better and ought to be implemented. "One coin, one vote" is relatively easy to implement, since the blockchain intrinsically knows how many coins each address has. To implement "One citizen, one vote" you need to know who's a unique citizen. How do you code that into a blockchain? [1] [1] The usual approach is an oracle, where you just say "Organization X issues every person a cryptographically signed certificate, and Organization X pinky promises to issue exactly one certificate to each individual person." This completely centralizes the governance into Organization X, since there's no technical means to check or enforce the pinky promise.
- pornel 4y ago
  You can't. It's the oracle problem. These systems are doomed to be oligarchies.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- aftbit 4y ago
  The approach that is taken by Proof of Humanity (and by extension Kleros Court) is to have an adversarial process where anyone can claim to be a unique human & submit evidence, which can then be vouched or challenged by anyone else registered in the system. A challenge is adjudicated by a "jury" of other registered users. There's an economic component as well: you must make a deposit to create a profile or promote a challenge, which you lose if you lose the adjudication. There's even an ERC standard process for adjudication, ERC 792. Surely not foolproof, but more consistent with the distributed ideals than an oracle. https://www.proofofhumanity.id/ https://www.proofofhumanity.id/ https://blog.kleros.io/proof-of-humanity-an-explainer/ https://blog.kleros.io/proof-of-humanity-an-explainer/
  - koheripbal 4y ago
    I appreciate that you honestly tried to answer this question, but it's not a viable solution. There would be no way to detect duplicate humans in the system. You also wouldn't be able to prevent someone farming other people's "identity" in 3rd world countries to effectively "buy" their vote.
koheripbal 4y ago
It's better than bitcoin's "one asic clock cycle - one vote".
koheripbal 4y ago
The people who direct the system are those who have the most invested in it. It's like having shares in a company. If you don't like it, you can use a different coin. There's no monopoly on crypto.

Suppose we all agree that "One citizen, one vote" is better and ought to be implemented. "One coin, one vote" is relatively easy to implement, since the blockchain intrinsically knows how many coins each address has. To implement "One citizen, one vote" you need to know who's a unique citizen. How do you code that into a blockchain? [1] [1] The usual approach is an oracle, where you just say "Organization X issues every person a cryptographically signed certificate, and Organization X pinky promises to issue exactly one certificate to each individual person." This completely centralizes the governance into Organization X, since there's no technical means to check or enforce the pinky promise.

pornel 4y ago
You can't. It's the oracle problem. These systems are doomed to be oligarchies.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
aftbit 4y ago
The approach that is taken by Proof of Humanity (and by extension Kleros Court) is to have an adversarial process where anyone can claim to be a unique human & submit evidence, which can then be vouched or challenged by anyone else registered in the system. A challenge is adjudicated by a "jury" of other registered users. There's an economic component as well: you must make a deposit to create a profile or promote a challenge, which you lose if you lose the adjudication. There's even an ERC standard process for adjudication, ERC 792. Surely not foolproof, but more consistent with the distributed ideals than an oracle. https://www.proofofhumanity.id/ https://www.proofofhumanity.id/ https://blog.kleros.io/proof-of-humanity-an-explainer/ https://blog.kleros.io/proof-of-humanity-an-explainer/
- koheripbal 4y ago
  I appreciate that you honestly tried to answer this question, but it's not a viable solution. There would be no way to detect duplicate humans in the system. You also wouldn't be able to prevent someone farming other people's "identity" in 3rd world countries to effectively "buy" their vote.

koheripbal 4y ago

It's better than bitcoin's "one asic clock cycle - one vote".

koheripbal 4y ago

The people who direct the system are those who have the most invested in it. It's like having shares in a company. If you don't like it, you can use a different coin. There's no monopoly on crypto.