Just an idea, I think voting will allow for more inclusivity especially with a possible long term solution of having dogecoin be the voting network for Litecoin/Bitcoin for the masses voice.
2 Likes
Maybe Bitcoin doesn’t need change but needs support of some kind to fight against the ever growing Ethereum network of premine central? and its proof of stink. (all jokes though Ethereum does provide value)
First, let me clarify a few things for you: Miners do not vote on anything. Miners simply use the computers at their disposition to calculate the Scrypt hash that has the greatest amount of leading zeroes (a solution to the proof-of-work problem). The one that finds the hash is the winner and gets the block reward (currently at 12.5 LTC, but it will soon be halved to 6.25 LTC).
There is this great video that talks about these details. I’m adding a link to the point in the video where it’s explained how proof-of-work solves the consensus problem:
2 Likes
I already know they implement updates but I think some sort of voting mechanism on doge would be beneficial to Litecoin and Bitcoin
I’m skeptical of voting and democracy, and I intend to live as a hermit. What if the majority votes against my interests? What if they vote that they have the right to demolish the house I have build?
The power of Bitcoin and Litecoin comes from the fact that the structure gives power to the individual over great groups of people. Even the government of the United States, with the NSA and its vast military, cannot break the hash algorithms and the signing algorithms used in these protocols, thus is unable to steal funds from individuals.
2 Likes
I think we need to expand the use cases for Bitcoin which could be allowed by expanding on networks that use similar proof of work algorithms to use the ledger to provide small values that create a “vote” perhaps and dogecoin with its infinite supply and low fees could allow irreversible voting on a completely separate coin? Therefore leaving the other two networks intact fully and irreversible to serve their functions as well.
I may not understand it enough to know if this is even possible though.
It would just have to be exact values to count as a certain vote.
Make it impossible to send from the same wallet twice as well which would increase the cost to attack a vote essentially?
You could also link wallet addresses if theyre coming from a wallet with a big bag that tries to split into multiple smaller wallets. The only issues would lie in exchange wallets right? I suppose some form of centralization would be required for an idea like this.
After viewing this video my doubt is clear about how “proof-of-work” works. Thanks for sharing