Feathercoin daemon and wallet production version 0.18.1
Old daemon and wallet version

Blockchain voting strategy

  • Regular Member | Tip mekhane

    I am thinking about using Feathercoin as a mean for vote accounting, but I am not quite sure about the integrity of the method I suggest in this article at my personal blog:


    Anybody would care to share a thought on the issue?


  • Moderators | Tip Wellenreiter

    How do you address the problem of double voting?
    As multiple wallet addresses can be generated by one user/voter, the result of a vote could easily influenced by placing multiple votes using different wallet addresses.

    A registration of voting addresses would solve that problem, but then the voting would not be fully anonymous

  • Regular Member | Tip mekhane

    I understand what you mean, but that problem is out of scope. It is related to trust within the voting community. Anybody inside the decision making process could vote double, or just not vote. Result would be then considered as invalid (unmatched voter and transactions balance in any sign), and community would have to address a much bigger problem, facing the fact that state of the art cannot yet solve this. It is only suitable for people willing to make it work, and committed to become administrators rather that users.

    The actual scope is anonymity on option stated by voter, that is so we as a community (and also third parties) cannot obtain information on who issued what specific option. User registration is a fact as instructions are sent to an email. Keeping that communication “safe” would be just as it happens with our human life. For digital home voting it would be a matter of keeping security procedures as high as possible when creating, operating and destroying voting wallet.

    In the real life experiment that I may be holding voting would be made locally as users are not familiar yet with cryptocurrency and technology, so registration of users is automatic. It does worry me the fact that timestamps could be made from outside and then checked with public transactions = votes option.

    I thought about having a double room space so all voters would go in, and once there access a different room were voting process could be made. That would at least solve the problem of time stamps inside the trusting circle. Some music, some food and it would really be a party.

    Thanks for your feedback

  • administrators | Tip MrWyrm

    The only solution is to bake the corruption in, so even if you command a huge percentage of the votes you don’t control a huge percentage of the power.

    If you look at bitshares implementation of DPoS, which is essentially a blockchain voting system for people, even having a lion share of the shares only guarantees you can forcefully appoint a few delegates.

  • Regular Member | Tip mekhane

    Interesting point on Bitshares smart contract platform. Can’t wait to see more. I am trying to understand more about this subject. It is probably being developed in as financial tool because, after all, decision making means resources, most of the time also called money. So collective fund management could be essentially a voting system.

    The thing about trust, or how to assume corruption… I guess computer voting is probably something unsolvable. 😉

  • | Tip ftchold

    I just had a look and voted.

  • Regular Member | Tip mekhane

    By chance I found this exchange site where they have a voting process every 7 days, in order to promote coins. I wonder how do they address the double voting problem. Wonder I do.

    I cannot post link becouse of this message:

    Post content was flagged as spam by Akismet.com

    Nice feature! If interested, search for C-CEX

Log in to reply