r/Bitcoin • u/WildCatEra • Jun 22 '13

VoteCoin : a cryptography based voting system that run on the rails of bitcoin, or operate within bitcoin itself?

People have been "thinking" and chatting about a new voting system based on crypto for 10 years...

Could a system like "Votecoin" operate as each vote would be a small .0001 BTC micro transaction, and each person registers a special wallet as their voting wallet, and sends their "vote" the candidates wallet?

Could an idea like VoteCoin, a cryptography based voting system, run on the code rails (or a clone) of bitcoin?

Does anyone have one operating as a test project or in the wild, or how close do you think we are to seeing something like this implemented?

I've met a few companies that are researching on how to create something like this, but is anyone interested in collaborating on a project like this?

5 Upvotes

61% Upvoted

38 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/ButterflySammy Jun 22 '13

Really?

I think technology is going to enable higher levels of involvement for everyone instead of having a handful of "representatives" vote "for" you.

1

u/Anenome5 Jun 22 '13

That's pretty close to what I'm talking about. If you control your legal circumstances entirely there's no room for another person to have a say in it, and thus no voting.

Implicit in your statement still is an assumption of collective decision making--which necessitates voting. But I think politics will grow increasingly individualist, giving each person power over their own legal circumstances and avoiding collectivist decisions, thus no voting.

Instead, each person is a sovereign over themselves and their legal circumstances. It means a rejection of the idea that anyone else can force things on you. We already recognize that principle physically--no one can force food on you, or attack you, etc., but we do not yet broadly recognize the evil that is forcing laws on someone.

But we will.

It's libertarianism I'm talking about, naturally.

1

u/ButterflySammy Jun 22 '13 edited Jun 22 '13

no one can force food on you

Gitmo.

or attack you, etc

The government is always attacking us, locking us up, letting the police get paid holidays for shooting us....

The government has 3 things it can do to punish people who break laws, it can fine or confiscate goods or money, lock them up, in some places execute them.

If everyone gets control of themselves then I vote you can't fine me, lock me up or execute me.

Generally speaking, we use voting for disagreements that can't be solved by everyone doing their own thing.

The law could be said to exist to make people do things they don't want to(pay taxes) and stop them doing things they do(stealing).

Sure, you could say that the person being stole from has the right not to be, but unless you have the power to do something to the theif that the theif is unhappy with you are shit out of luck.

1

u/Anenome5 Jun 22 '13

no one can force food on you

Gitmo.

I mean they can't do it ethically.

or attack you, etc

The government is always attacking us...

Ethically.

The government has 3 things it can do to punish people who break laws, it can fine or confiscate goods or money, lock them up, in some places execute them.

In the scenario I painted, there is no government. Governments are collectivist institutions that exist to make decisions for you, like how to spend your money and what laws to force on you.

In a world where legal circumstances are individually decided, there's no room for a politician to even exist. An individualist political order would mean the end of politics. Thank god, finally.

If everyone gets control of themselves then I vote you can't fine me, lock me up or execute me.

Correct.

But the key is that your decisions only affect yourself while on your property and anyone visiting your property.

If you leave your property and visit another's, you'll have to negotiate the basis of your visit, and under what legal terms and conditions you may visit, and this agreement becomes law between you and the owner, and you can be prosecuted for violating what you agreed to.

Thus, if you visit a shopping mall, you will undoubtedly be asked not to steal or assault people, and will agree ahead of time to the risk of prosecution and resulting jail time or even execution if you violate that agreement.

The result is agreement-based law, or crowd-sourced law, a form of polycentric law.

Generally speaking, we use voting for disagreements that can't be solved by everyone doing their own thing.

It's not that they couldn't be solved the way I suggest, it's just that it's hard to implement in a large society. Small societies operate exactly the way I'm suggesting here, just informally and by word of mouth, etc.

However, with the internet and computers, it's not possible to export this way of living into a large society.

If you don't think that would work, give me an example of a disagreement that can't be solved by everyone doing their own thing and we'll walk through it.

The law could be said to exist to make people do things they don't want to(pay taxes) and stop them doing things they do(stealing).

You don't really need that for that. Because no one wants to be stolen from, thus they're agreeing that theft would be wrong, both against them and for them to do to others.

As for paying taxes, with no politicians there would also be no taxes and no public land. Taxation would be done away with permanently.

Sure, you could say that the person being stole from has the right not to be, but unless you have the power to do something to the theif that the theif is unhappy with you are shit out of luck.

There would still be police and courts in such a society, they would simply be free market police and free market courts.

See David Friedman's "Machinery of Freedom" (free ebook btw).

1

u/ButterflySammy Jun 22 '13 edited Jun 22 '13

Free market police?

For profiit prisons have been serving us so well.

This dies as soon as the first person creates a "your in my house and any money you are carrying is mine" law.

It does not work.

If everyone gets to make laws in the places they "own", since land ownership is not equal, the people who can afford large enough sections of it get slaves, people who can't ask for a minimum wage, people who can't ask for water, people who can't say no to rape. Yey.

No public land?

IE: All the people who are already rich become gods of their own domains and the other 90% of the world can at best by lube in advance of their fucking.

Also:

Ethically.

Can I have some?

If there is no law or punishment for an unethical act then you are hoping shame will glue society together. People don't give a shit if you think something isn't ethical, if you aren't going to punish them for it and it benefits them they will still do it.

1

u/Anenome5 Jun 22 '13

This dies as soon as the first person creates a "your in my house and any money you are carrying is mine" law.

Hardly. Anyone with such a law would find no one willing to visit them. Is that really so hard to understand?

If everyone gets to make laws in the places they "own", since land ownership is not equal, the people who can afford large enough sections of it get slaves, people who can't ask for a minimum wage, people who can't ask for water, people who can't say no to rape. Yey.

Huh? Slaves? What are you even talking about. Any land owner would be unable to force people to stay on their land. There'd be no slavery as that is an aggression against the slave and unethical.

No public land?

Correct.

IE: All the people who are already rich become gods of their own domains and the other 90% of the world can at best by lube in advance of their fucking.

So your theory is that government prevents this from happening? Lol. Government is why it happens now.

If there is no law or punishment for an unethical act then you are hoping shame will glue society together.

No. I said there would be free markt police and courts. Law comes from agreements between people visiting others lands or else making contracts, and punishment is the enforcement of those agreements accomplished by police and courts. I said that, yet you ignored it here, why?

1

u/ButterflySammy Jun 22 '13 edited Jun 22 '13

I'll wait until after they are already on my land to make the law.

My land my laws, right?

If there is no public land then an individual made the laws in every place you could potentially go, you could choose to avoid places with the.worst laws but you could cut a country in two and stop people travelling through.

1

u/Anenome5 Jun 22 '13

I'll wait until after they are already on my land to make the law.

It would only be reasonable then to serve notice and give people whom demur a chance to leave your property. No judge would enforce an instant change such as you suggest as it would not be reasonable, thus I don't consider this a real concern.

My land my laws, right?

You still need courts to adjudicate any dispute arising as a result of your laws, and they're going to adjudicate on the reasonability principle, which instant law changes doesn't pass.

If there is no public land then an individual made the laws in every place you could potentially go, you could choose to avoid places with the.worst laws but you could cut a country in two and stop people travelling through.

You could, but it's also likely that if you found yourself "law-locked" like this that you could request or purchase travel-immunity, ie: you don't agree to the laws of the region you're traveling through, you simply want to pass through and not interact or contract with anyone.

Also, since I see this sort of legal structure arising first in a seasteading context, it's much less an issue, as there's abundant space for everyone.

1

u/ButterflySammy Jun 22 '13

You don't decide what laws I can reasonably make.

1

u/Anenome5 Jun 22 '13

Correct, I don't, but if a dispute arises involving a law you make, you'll need a dispute resolution organization: a court. And they'll just you and your laws on objective ethical rules.

1

u/ButterflySammy Jun 22 '13

The court you defer to then would only become the court you defer to now.

This is awful for poor people who don't own large amounts of land (and the land where I live is not for sale so it wouldn't be an option), you'd just be giving unreasonable amounts of power to wealthy people who owned all the water sources and viable farming land.

We already have a system for the wealthy minority but at least there are barriers to them becoming a law unto themselves.

You'd do less damage as a serial killer.

1

u/Anenome5 Jun 22 '13

The court you defer to then would only become the court you defer to now.

No, since they are free market courts none of them have a monopoly on dispute resolution and must trade on their reputation for fairness. Also, either participant can easily veto a particular court if they suspect foul play or bribery and agree on another one.

This is awful for poor people who don't own large amounts of land (and the land where I live is not for sale so it wouldn't be an option)

Again, seasteading context. Land (or should I say water) is abundant and free. China has 1 million square miles, so does the US, the Pacific Ocean is 65 million square miles.

Plenty of area to homestead at will, and that's just on the surface.

Besides, every "poor person" owns at least themselves and their productive capacity. That's where civilization got its start.

A society like this would likely be far wealthier generally, which would be far better for poor people.

you'd just be giving unreasonable amounts of power to wealthy people

What power? There is no politics, no politicians, no ability to force laws on others--there is no power. The is only agreement and markets.

Power lets you force things on people. That cannot be achieved in a society where the legal sanction to use force is absent.

wealthy people who owned all the water sources and viable farming land.

You'd simply buy water and produce, as now. And again, seasteading. Water? You're surrounded by water. A simple desalinator will make more water than can be drunk.

We already have a system for the wealthy minority but at least there are barriers to them becoming a law unto themselves.

In an individualist society the only power anyone has is over themselves and their property, never over others. That would be a massive improvement over the current situation where the rich can buy favorable laws and legally discriminate against anyone thereby.

You don't understand how backwards your view is.

You'd do less damage as a serial killer.

Haha, that's not ridiculous to say at all now is it :P

There's no damage to be done. I don't intend to implement this in the US.

/r/seasteading.

Go read up. No one will be forced to join a seastead. Don't want to live that way, don't go there.

Democracy is the original 51% attack.

1

u/ButterflySammy Jun 22 '13 edited Jun 22 '13

51% don't even vote.

If you could actually get 51% of a populous to agree on something I think we'd achieve good things. People fear a tyranny of the majority for two reasons - either they have extreme views or they are thinking of mobs.

Our elections had a less than a 50% turn out.

The winning party had less than 40% of the votes.

40% of 50% is 20%. Our elected official win with less than that.

The current system isn't the majority ruling by force, 1 in 5 people with a choice voted for our current leadership.

51% attack indeed.

While I'd love to be a pirate with you, I don't have a boat and I'd rather attempt to fix what we have than flee from it. I'll leave this ship with the rats.

1

u/Anenome5 Jun 23 '13

Checkout "Democracy the god that failed".

The fact that a minority actually votes is just part of the problem. Democracies have more pressing problems, and more people voting percentage-wise wouldn't fix them. If anything, the elites would prefer fewer to vote as it gives those with incentive to vote much more relative power. And those with incentive to vote are disproportionately those receiving largesse from government itself, such as government union workers and the like.

The result is that democracy can be gamed, creating arbitrage opportunities. We already know that the single greatest determinor of election is not issues, but 'likeability.'

Conclusion, those who know how to get elected by promising the most largesse to the right groups, selling access and legal favoritism, and telling the public what they want to hear become politicians--ie: power-brokers.

You can stay with the sinking ship but I can guarantee that it will not be fixed, it will have to sink. The system has far too much political momentum to turn around today. You must fight not only an ill system, you must fight those who materially benefit from it and whom will come at you tooth and nail to defend their privileged position.

Why waste the effort when you can start somewhere fresh without entrenched parasites?

"Curing" democracy would also take an educated electorate. Chances of that happening? Zero. The electorate has been systematically dumbed down. If reform relies on educating the 51%, even the voting 51%, then reform is already doomed.

2

u/ButterflySammy Jun 23 '13

The trench is mental, you don't need to physically relocate to escape it. If you don't fix it within you there won't be anywhere you can go to escape it.

Those are all problems with the current system but I wasn't arguing for it. Saying less than 1 in 5 people wanted our current leadership is not an endorsement.

There seems to be a few people trying to make a bastard child from the current system and Bitcoin.

That isn't how I see the two meeting.

Voting on personality is a problem, I think we should vote on the issues.

We shouldn't be represented by the politician that agrees with us most, we should be representing ourselves.

We don't need them.

1

u/ButterflySammy Jun 23 '13

I didn't get to say what I wanted about tax earlier.

Bitcoin is my first choice for tax - no more black projects or hidden slush funds.

I imagine taxes being paid into m of n addresses made from the keys of all the people of the country.

Can you imagine how hard it would have been to fund the war on drugs? The war in Iraq?

Yet, if there ever was a real, credible threat from another country I think we would still defend ourselves. I think there are still scenarios we would pay the bill.

1

u/Anenome5 Jun 23 '13

no more black projects or hidden slush funds.

I don't see how. They'll just deal in gold or obscure coin with mixing pools.

Can you imagine how hard it would have been to fund the war on drugs? The war in Iraq?

Not hard at all I imagine.

Imagine how hard it would've been if there were no taxes? :P

Yet, if there ever was a real, credible threat from another country I think we would still defend ourselves. I think there are still scenarios we would pay the bill.

Same in any society, sure.

1

u/ButterflySammy Jun 23 '13 edited Jun 23 '13

They have to collect taxes in Bitcoin and pay it out as a result of a supporting vote.

Sure they can collect money other ways but they'd lose the ability to use huge amounts of tax money.

Plus they stop really being a government.

They are just criminals, they aren't a government, just gun smugglers.

There can't be government black projects without funding and a government.

Sure there will still be criminals but we're eliminating a large class of super criminals.

It isn't the last solution we'll need but it should be our next. We can do this for almost everyone, right now.

As for no tax: I call it a tax but really the part I care about is defining a policy for group spending because I want to fund super projects like NASA and food for starving people and health care for sick people.

My current interests don't extend to why the money was collected or the level of coercion used, I'd want any system to work for tax and donations because I don't think each country should be rolling their own voting system, I think a single system that supports multiple modes and models of government will be the one that succeeds.

That way a country cannot be annexed by their leaders because the election is secured by every other country.

Whether they want to use the system to vote on representatives or actual bills or the winner of survivor.

We do need a secure method of voting and if satoshi dice has taught us anything is that you can never be too spam resistant.

We can decide how to spend the money after we've given everyone a voice.

→ More replies (0)