I see, but prediction markets are not so different from direct democracy, at least it relies on the same mechanism of relying on collective intelligence for decision making. The only difference is the addition of a direct financial incentive. Although we can argue that the financial incentive is already built in the price of Bitcoin so people would try to make decisions that benefit their vested interest in Bitcoin.

« Futarchy is a form of government proposed by economist Robin Hanson, in which elected officials define measures of national wellbeing »

« Elected officials » - unless you have a different definition, futarchy certainly has a component of representative democracy. Powarchy seems like the current status.

No it wouldn’t, but I think mining centralization is acceptable as long as transactions cannot be censored. But when it becomes to governance, delegating this power to centralized mining is a dead end. Initially, mining wasn’t supposed to become so centralized. Bitcoin needs to upgrade to proof-of-human-work for governance only.

It seems that what you’re proposing here is to implement a representative democracy on Bitcoin. I would be more in favor of a direct democracy that is well suited to decide the future of a public good such as Bitcoin. Elective democracy is more prone to corruption and while I agree that the plebs is not all knowing in all matters, collective intelligence is often superior to the intelligence of one corruptible committee of men. Open debates between experts would certainly be an important component to maintain. Participating in a process of direct democracy is optional and would require active participation from the node runners so it’s not everybody that would show up to have their voice heard, only those with a honest interest in improving the protocol.

I’m not sure I understand your point. Governance in #Bitcoin is stuck because the mining power is too centralized and miners don’t really care about politics, they just want to make money for securing the network. Now imagine that governance would be decided by node runners and that to an eligible node runner you just need to prove that you are a unique human to prevent Sybil attacks. Would it be a bad way to govern the protocol?

Even better for decentralized coordination is PoHW (proof-of-human-work). 1 person, 1 vote. It doesn’t get more decentralized than that. #Idena

Interesting. How about this photo that circulated? #IranWar

Also, one interesting point made by Lazar is that it seems that the efforts to reverse-engineer alien tech were progressive very slowly which contradicts the narrative pushed by others that the US have already mastered the tech and have functional spacecrafts on-par with alien tech.

I haven’t seen this new documentary but Bob Lazar is legit IMO. They tried to smear him a few times but many of his revelations turned out to be true decades later. Also, many personalities in ufology to that I would consider disinformation agents are very dismissive of his story. Be wary of those who claim that Lazar is a liar.

How about this photo that is supposedly of the second pilot captured by Iranians forces? Apparently, it’s neither an AI generated photo nor an old one.

#IranWar

Ok it worked. It’s strange though that it filter messages on my own timeline. The default setup to 3 seems a bit aggressive (especially for long posts).