I've been designing a next-gen blockchain platform and made some controversial choices. Looking for honest feedback from the crypto community. ## Core Design Principles: **What's DIFFERENT:** - ❌ No blocks (individual transaction propagation) - ❌ No mining (Byzantine consensus via random node verification) - ❌ No cryptocurrency tokens (zero economic incentives) - ✅ Quantum-resistant signatures (future-proof cryptography) - ✅ ONE account per human (enforced for democracy) - ✅ Direct democracy governance (citizens vote on platform changes) **The Goal:** Create a social/governance platform where 5 billion humans can participate in direct democracy with true "one person, one vote" - no plutocracy, no mining pools controlling consensus, no whales manipulating votes with tokens. ## The Trade-offs I'm Wrestling With: ### 1. **Privacy vs Accountability** To prevent vote manipulation, all transactions are PUBLIC (like Bitcoin). You get a pseudonymous username, but your voting history is transparent. - **Pro:** No secret vote buying, provable democratic consensus - **Con:** Your political views are permanently public **Question:** Is radical transparency worth the privacy loss? Or does this create a surveillance dystopia? ### 2. **One Account Per Person** To achieve "one person one vote," I enforce ONE identity per human. You can't create multiple accounts to spam votes. - **Pro:** Prevents Sybil attacks, enables true democracy - **Con:** Can't separate work/personal identities, no "burner accounts" **Question:** Is enforcing single identity too authoritarian? Or necessary for democratic integrity? ### 3. **Permanent Immutability** Once you post something, it's permanent. Forever. No edits, no deletions. - **Pro:** Historical truth preserved, no censorship or revisionism - **Con:** Youthful mistakes haunt you forever, violates GDPR "right to be forgotten" **Question:** Should people have the right to erase their past? Or does democracy require permanent accountability? ### 4. **No Economic Incentives** Nodes run altruistically (like Wikipedia editors or Tor volunteers). No mining rewards, no staking yields, no token speculation. - **Pro:** Pure democratic participation, no profit motive corrupting governance - **Con:** Will people actually run nodes without financial gain? **Question:** Can a blockchain survive without economic incentives? Or am I being naive about human nature? ## What I'm NOT Building: - Not a DeFi platform (no smart contracts) - Not a currency (no tokens to trade) - Not a corporate project (open-source, community-governed) - Not trying to compete with Bitcoin/Ethereum (different purpose entirely) ## What I AM Building: A democratic social network where: - Governments can't censor you - Corporations can't ban you - Wealthy users can't buy more influence - Your vote counts exactly as much as anyone else's ## My Questions For You: 1. **Privacy:** Would you use a platform where your votes are public forever? 2. **Identity:** Is "one account per person" too restrictive? 3. **Incentives:** Would you run a node altruistically (costs ~$50/month)? 4. **Governance:** Would you trust direct democracy over representative democracy? I know this sounds idealistic. Maybe too idealistic. But I'm genuinely curious if there's a community that wants this, or if I'm solving a problem nobody has. **Honest criticism welcome.** Tell me why this will fail. I want to stress-test these ideas before building something nobody wants. --- **TL;DR:** Building a blockchain with no blocks, no mining, no coins - just direct democracy and radical transparency. Is this revolutionary or just naive?