Author: Venzen Khaosan 2015-08-04 09:23:46
Published on: 2015-08-04T09:23:46+00:00
In a recent post on the Bitcoin-dev mailing list, Venzen suggests that it is not scientific or sensible to go from the proposal stage straight to voting and then implementation stage. Instead, proposals should be tested and scenario simulated with published results in order for objective evaluation to be made possible. Venzen argues that there is a lack of provision for scaling down in the current proposals as well. In response to this post, jl2012 proposes candidate proposals and a voting system for different stakeholder groups. The voter groups include miners, Bitcoin holders, developers, exchanges, merchants and service providers, and full nodes operators. The votes will be counted independently, and each group has its own eligibility criteria. Single transferable vote is applied, and voters are required to rank their preference with “1”, “2”, “3”, etc, or use “N” to indicate rejection of a candidate. Voting by miners, developers, exchanges, and merchants are probably the easiest, but for full nodes, we need a trusted person to set up a website as an interface to vote. For Bitcoin holders, the workload could be very high, and there may be a need for some automatic system to collect and count the votes. People are generally not allowed to change their minds after voting, especially for anonymous voters like Bitcoin holders and solo miners, and any double voting attempt from these classes will invalidate all related votes. In conclusion, Venzen suggests that rigorous Computer Science should be applied to Bitcoin. jl2012 proposes a comprehensive voting system for different stakeholder groups, which includes eligibility criteria, voting procedure, and interpretation of results.
Updated on: 2023-06-10T18:14:09.353959+00:00