[ryanschneider]

> What, exactly do they want to do with a blockchain and why?

Here’s my take: they want to enable voting online with some level of trust. One major problem with online voting is ensuring each voter only votes once. In traditional voting (e.g. for a political office) the government is the one ensuring each eligible voter only votes once. Since the point of this is to “decentralize” voting, they need a complicated cryptographic approach to stand in for the governments role in ensuring one person one vote instead.

[Moodles]

And how, exactly does a blockchain help with voting? Be specific: what is being hashed, what signatures, where? What kind of cryptography and exactly how is it used? It’s so frustrating when these MBA types just wave their hands and say “decentralisation!”

Why do they have three types of coin they want to sell? So you’re suggesting the whole point of this is for voting with governments you don’t trust. Why would such a government implement this then? How does having the entire blockchain public to all help with voter anonymity? Do blockchain schemes actually have a good record of not being hacked (answer: hell no). The article never made any specific claims as simple as “we are using s blockchain because...”

Basically, they used a lot of buzzwords to try to confuse people into “investing” in their coins.

[paula_berman]

Blockchains help with governance and identity (which are the same thing) by instituting global personas that can signal preferences in a censorship-resistant way. If you do not think there is a dire need for such mechanisms of global governance you might not have been reading the news of the past decade. The tokens are going to be granted as human rights, each with a specific functionality and reasoning behind them (identity, voting credits that account for time, and votes). You also have it completely wrong that this is meant to be used by governments: it is a peer-to-peer governance system. Any organization, collective, digital community can apply it - including a government - but the design is centered on the individual, not a centralized authority. Finally, I suggest you go do your research about the organization and history of hacktivism behind it and you might find that this could not be further away from a bunch of MBA types waving decentralization. Here are some links to get you started: https://www.ted.com/talks/pia_mancini_how_to_upgrade_democra... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UajbQTHnTfM https://www.dropbox.com/s/sifogl4zimwkkei/Democracy%20Earth%... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJfT-0v5AJI

[Moodles]

As I said: be specific.

You obviously won't talk about anything technical to do with the blockchain: how the consensus algorithm works and why you chose it, who sells the coins and why, why you need coins, what security guarantees it has, why having all nodes of a network sharing a copy of the same ledger and constantly engaging in a protocol to agree on the state of the ledger is at all a good idea, and so on and so on... You just want to argue with me a bit to muddle the waters so people side it's one side against another and the truth lies somewhere inbetween. Fact is, this project makes no sense.