Poll FTC richclub - bad or good idea
-
So can we then start a 500k club and force our will over the 100k club?
-
So can we then start a 500k club and force our will over the 100k club?
Won’t matter anyway, the agenda is decided at the annual secret Fetherberg meeting. The rest is just a puppet show. Shhh, I’ve already said too much.
-
Obey the law, listen to the whales.
Muhahaha.
-
How about we build a decentralised voting system into the wallet where regardless of the amount of ftc you hold in that address, the weighting of your vote remains the same.
You can have a wallet with 100 addresses but if it’s set up right, every copy of the qt can send a vote from an adress in the form of ftc, but depending on the size of the address the ftc came from, would determin the weiting.
The idea is that everyone can vote by % of sacrifice from the address
if your address fall in the top 100 donators by total ftc, then you can have a pretty title i suppose.
but yeah i vote no…
-
I like the idea, but I think it would be open to abuse.
-
The movement of a coin as a token for voting is an interesting concept though. You could do it with coloured vote coins, which are returned upon the end of voting. Send to this address for ‘Yes’ and this address for ‘No’. You could issue to the coins to all people who have registered to vote.
-
in the real world though yes a 500k coin group could be formed who invest in what ever they see fit and reap and rewards. just as a 1ftc club could be setup.
these clubs have no say as to the direction of the coin its just a club. but no the 500k, 100k groups would hold no sway over the 1ftc club infact there could be millions on members in the 1ftc club that makes a mockery of the larger clubs.
Although maybe we should rename it to “FTC Investors Club” where its a flexible investment amount where you would get a proportionate amount back so 2% of total investment gets 2% of the end profits. this would make voting more difficult however ? would we all still get one vote? or is 1% = 1 vote? it would be more investment and potentially moe of the risk?
-
I am all opened for tweaking parameters and purpose. So far this is interesting discussion.
Hopefully something potent will be born from this.
I do not want this issue to fall into oblivion and be forgotten.
-
If the ‘plan’ has been tweaked, the poll is now meaningless.
-
If the ‘plan’ has been tweaked, the poll is now meaningless.
So is eating of Carolina Reaper :)
-
No its just a discussion. Which formed after concerns were raised about the original idea. Its an agile process - challenge -> discuss -> refine -> repeat
-
So is eating of Carolina Reaper :)
What I mean is, if there is a ‘plan B’, it might be a plan for the voting to reflect the improved options. Some of the ‘bad’ voters may wish to move their votes.
P.S, have you ever eaten a Reaper?
-
How about we build a decentralised voting system into the wallet where regardless of the amount of ftc you hold in that address, the weighting of your vote remains the same.
…
The idea is that everyone can vote by % of sacrifice from the address.The big unaddressed problem of bitcoin is centralization of hashing. To truly address it, we would need a proof of human identity, which cannot be mathematical. I don’t know how to solve it, but without it, your suggestion won’t work. True ACP decentralization is also impossible without it.
-
Although maybe we should rename it to “FTC Investors Club”…
Sorry to nitpick, FTC is not a stock, it is a currency. You do not invest in it, you save it.
-
Pano, I agree with this. To have anonymity means that the creation of multiple identities is possible, which makes the trust issue tricky.
-
What I mean is, if there is a ‘plan B’, it might be a plan for the voting to reflect the improved options. Some of the ‘bad’ voters may wish to move their votes.
P.S, have you ever eaten a Reaper?
Not yet :)
If we evolve the original idea we can make completely new poll later.
-
The big question is, do we need physical human identities or do we just need some sort of cryptographic measure of trust. A digital identity with an unfalsifiable ‘rating’ could increase trust without the need to share identity with people. The digital citizen’s ID ratings could be ruined by running a scam. How you’d keep this from being falsified is tricky. But in my mind, the incentive of losing your ‘reputation’ is strong glue in the real world that prevents people from acting out of character, there might be a way to emulate this for digital cititzens.
-
Not yet :)
If we evolve the original idea we can make completely new poll later.
Plan.
I’ve not eaten anything quite that hot either. TBH, a habanero is a horrendous enough experience raw.
-
I don’t mean we invest “in” FTC we invest “with” FTC.
-
The big question is, do we need physical human identities or do we just need some sort of cryptographic measure of trust. A digital identity with an unfalsifiable ‘rating’ could increase trust without the need to share identity with people. The digital citizen’s ID ratings could be ruined by running a scam. How you’d keep this from being falsified is tricky. But in my mind, the incentive of losing your ‘reputation’ is strong glue in the real world that prevents people from acting out of character, there might be a way to emulate this for digital cititzens.
Considering the needs of ACP decentralization, we would need a “proof” of autonomous personhood. (Real mathematical proof of this is impossible.) Once identified, we would assume that private keys of persons prove their autonomous participation. Decentralized ACP would have to be rewarded, which would also provide the answer to future Neoscrypt ASICs. White market will provide identity checking an pairing of persons with wallets.
