RE: A Case for Stake-weighted Voting?
You know, @abh12345, you haven't quite opened the can of worms these findings lead to, so hey, I will. :)
We could have one account voting if we had any kind of 'know your customer' in place. Surely there's a way to do it and preserve the all mighty anonymity and security everyone seems to be concerned with (until for whatever reasons, they're not).
I'm not a developer, or a decentralized evangelist, or a blockchain brain, so I'm sure I'm missing all kinds of things, but having all accounts opened by a single individual tied back to that one individual, account based voting or not, seems like a simple ask. If no one wants anyone having access to that information, then what about writing it into the code.
I don't know the way to do it, but there's got to be one. Telling me it can't be done (not you, just anyone) because of this and this and this is no more a solution than the nonsense I may be ignorantly spewing now. Somewhere out there is the way to do this. There's no reason why we can't just have fair voting (outside of human nature, which I guess we're always going to be combating), but dang it, we could certainly make it way harder, and way more costly to do.
Yeah.
At present, most accounts are coming through the claims route, and so we know who the original marker sat with.
There are still multiple ways to pay for an account and be anonymous, or go through the Steemit inc sign up process (perhaps with a throw-away phone number), and I suspect these methods aren't going anywhere soon.
Sooo, at present, I have nothing with regards to a solution. Oracles were touted as being a step towards implying an account was 'good', but those are seemingly some way off yet.