Spaceman_Spiff
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1638
Merit: 1000


₪``Campaign Manager´´₪


View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
March 14, 2017, 09:33:54 PM

I think some sort of voting system based on BTC holdings is sorely needed for coordinating development.
Buying and selling can only be done after a decision has been made, only brings 1d information (up or down, a little or much) and more importantly is only the net result of many different forces (macroeconomics etc.) so it will generally be hard to say the price is going up because of reason X or Y.
Nope. We don't want a new 1% to control things.
Then tell me how things are controlled, because it is always controlled somehow.
It's not. That's the whole point.
You mean decisions just get made randomly?
No. Humans don't act randomly.
Then there is a way things work, thus certain groups exert control.  
No. Just individuals working together for their own personal purposes. That's why we are still above 1200 even after the etf mess. If bitcoin had some kind of central authority it would not be worth nearly as much. Individual self-interest is and has always been the key.
Yes, it is voluntary and selfserving.  Indeed there is no central authority.  That does not mean that there aren't any groups that exert some control over the workings of bitcoin though.  The good thing is that the power is divided over many actors, but that doesn't mean that there is no power.  Or would you say that what mining pool operators do doesn't affect you

I am getting away from my initial point though.  The question at hand was not to let a group control bitcoin, it was to find a way to measure the opinion of users/holders  (as a source of information for developers, miners, exchanges,merchants and other users/hodlers).
Thousands of individuals working independently is not "a group".
Ok, semantics then.  You were talking about a small number of people?