Verifying the vote would be a great quality of this system. Because it can provide you with a sense of trust in the "who is counting" concept. And voting can build communities and set a more independent censorship free way of putting out the will of the masses at work
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Exactly! Thats exactly why I chose DAG as the underlying system, because it decentralizes verification, making security of the vote stronger the more people you add to the system. Scalability and security.
Very smart.
Thanks! That's far too high praise.
My biggest challenge is that I wish to integrate this the viable system model. It's an interesting cybernetics concept that I think will be very useful for my Intentional community project. I think this would be really applicable to something Stafford Beer would call a "Algedonic Meter" to determine the relative dissatistfaction of the community within this model. Check out Project CyberSyn to learn more about that. If you want a truly profound learning experience, check out Stafford Beer's lectures on Youtube. Amazing stuff.
It's crazy, because in order to really get a grip on problems like these, It think it takes a trans-disciplinary approach. It would do no good to just know, say political science or sociology or something. It's a real "Jack of All Trades" type of thing.
Thank you, I will check it! Have a great day and I appreciate your detailed response!